AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is filed to quash the complaint dated 6-9-1995.
According to the petitioners, the complaint was filed by the General Attorney and Branch Manager of the Complainant Company and power of attorney was executed in his favour one month after filing of the complaint and, therefore, the said Manager has no authority to file the complaint and the complaint was barred by time. I am unable to agree with this contention. The Samrat Shipping Company is having a branch office at Ludhiana and it is managed by its Branch Manager Sh. Hari Om Jindal who has signed the complaint and who had filed the complaint. According to the complaint, Sh. Hari Om Jindal is the Branch Manager, General Attorney and Principal Officer of the complainant company and he is comptent to file the present complaint. The accused firm namely M/s. Bicycle Manufacturing Corporation, Ludhiana, issued the cheques which are the subject matter of the complaint on Punjab and Sind Bank at Ludhiana. Therefore, the cheques have been given to the Branch Manager of the Complainant Company. When the accused company itself gave a cheque to the Manager of the complainant company it clearly shows that payee is the Branch Office of the Samrat Shipping Company at Ludhiana. Therefore, the complaint filed by Sh. Hari Om Jindal who is the Principal Officer and Branch Manager of Samrat Shipping Company is valid and maintainable, under law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble High Court in M/s. Satish and Company v. M/s. S. R. Traders 1998 (2) All ICCR 354 and contended that the complaint on behalf of the company must be filed by a person whose actions would be binding on the company which he represents, whether he is called a Manager, Secretary or by any other designation. Specific authorisation in that behalf is necessary. I am unable to agree with this contention. When the Branch Manager is looking after the affairs of the company, the Complainant on behalf of Samrat Shipping Company is valid and he is the person who is answerable to the company and the company is also responsible for all the acts of its Branch Manager in respect of the acts done by him in respect of that particular Branch of which he was the Manager. No specific authorisation is required for filing the complaint by the Branch Manager since cheques in question in this case have been issued and given to the Branch Manager for encashment. Therefore, he is holder in due course and the cheques have been presented to the Bank namely Bank of India for collection. When the Branch Manager presented the cheque for encashment on behalf of the principal company and when the cheques were dishonoured, he is competent to file the complaint even without there being any authorisation since he is responsible for all his acts on behalf of the company.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to quash the complaint. Dismissed.
Petition dismissed.