By- ATLURI SRI VIDYA
The two-judge bench which consists of Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh has dismissed the argument on failing to elaborate on the authorization of the official filing under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Complaint when suing through the Managing Director (MD) would be fatal to the Complaint. According to the Court, “There could be a format in which the Company’s name is supplied initially, suing either through the Managing Director (MD), however, this cannot be a basic problem only because the Director’s identity was revealed first, accompanied either by position held in the Company.”
The Court also had declared that it is either the Manager or the (MD) who’s in charge of all the company’s management for day-to-day operation within the activity will undoubtedly involve performing the act of seeking the court whether under civil or criminal law for starting the court hearing in action.
Underneath this instance, these cheques were written inside the name of a corporation called M/s. Bell Marshall Telesystems Limited. The complainant was described as “Mr. Bhupesh M. Rathod, MD of M/s. Bell Marshall Telesystems Ltd…..” as per the complaint.
The complaint is supported by a copy of the board authorizing the MD should submit the complaint has also been included with the complaint. The accused opposed the complaint because it had been submitted under Bhupesh Rathod’s individual capacity instead of on behalf of an organization along with the MD, among other grounds. The accused were convicted either by the trial court even though no paperwork proving that the loan has been approved as well as the panel decision had not yet been approved.
The appeal was denied by High Court because the complaint wasn’t really submitted on behalf of an organization as well as the complainant may not have been the recipient of such a cheque.