Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2008 (6) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 549 - SUPREME COURTWhether the complaint under section 138 of the Act signed by a Attorney holder is not maintainable? Whether the attorney holder can lodge the complaint? Held that:- In regard to business transactions of companies, partnerships or proprietary concerns, many a time the authorized agent or attorney holder may be the only person having personal knowledge of the particular transaction; and if the authorized agent or attorney-holder has signed the complaint, it will be absurd to say that he should not be examined under section 200 of the Code, and only the Secretary of the company or the partner of the firm or the proprietor of a concern, who did not have personal knowledge of the transaction, should be examined. Of course, where the cheque is drawn in the name of the proprietor of a proprietary concern, but an employee of such concern (who is not an attorney holder) has knowledge of the transaction, the payee as complainant and the employee who has knowledge of the transaction, may both have to be examined. Be that as it may. In this case we find no infirmity. Allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 and direct the learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint as already directed by the interim order.
|