Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 855 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Existence of erstwhile company and liability of resultant of company after merger - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the complaint has been filed by an unauthorised person since the General Power of Attorney marked at Ex. P-1 was subsequent in its date from the date of filing of the complaint - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of PW-1, which is produced at Ex. P-1, is subsequent in its date than that of the lodging of the complaint, however, along with the complaint also, the very same PW-1, who has filed the said complaint, has produced one more copy of the General Power of Attorney, however, shown to have been executed by one Future Capital Holdings Ltd., in his favour. The said Power of Attorney authorises PW-1 to lodge the complaint and to proceed in the criminal prosecution When under a judicial order, merger of the Companies has taken place, the earlier Company cease to be in existence after its merger with another Company and the Company which emerges after merger would be entitled to all the rights and liabilities of the merged Company and subject to the terms of the merger. Thus, when the previous Company which had granted loan to the accused is shown to have been merged, it cannot be said that the present complainant-Company does not have locus standi to file the complaint, so also, its Power of Attorney Sri. V. Jansi Rao. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner on the said point is not acceptable. The last point of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued after dishonour of the cheques since being addressed to the accused in his personal name, but, not to the proprietorship concern, is an invalid notice, is also not acceptable, for the reason that, admittedly the accused is the Proprietor of his concern M/s. Vertical Network Communications - A proprietorship concern since being not an independent legal entity, it can be sued in the name of the Proprietor. Since both the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court after appreciating the materials placed before them, including oral and documentary evidence, have rightly concluded holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him proportionately to the gravity of the proven guilt, there are no perversity, illegality or error warranting any interference at the hands of this Court. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
|