AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
The only issue which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the complaint for dishonour of cheques was properly laid by the complainant. The High Court has opined against the complainant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is pertinent to notice that the complaint was filed by duly authorised Director of the company but in the description of title instead of stating that the company sues through the Director, format stated that it was Director who was suing on behalf of the company. It is also not in dispute that the company was paid rent/security by the respondents for which these cheques had been issued and the company is a holder in due course.
We have also perused the notice issued at the stage when the cheques were dishonored and those notices are also in the same format. In the reply, no plea is stated to be raised that the notice was not correctly addressed.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint has been correctly laid and we are unable to persuade ourself to agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
The impugned order is set aside and the complaint shall proceed in accordance with law. In order to avoid any ambiguity in future, the cause title may be changed as to one in the name of the company suing through its Director.
Needless to say that the trial will proceed as expeditiously as possible.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.