Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 926 - MADRAS HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition - Petition filed by power of attorney - Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - suggestive case of the respondent/accused is that the petition filed by the power of attorney is not maintainable - Held that:- In the power of attorney given by the private complainant in Ex.P1, it was given only in respect of M/s.Swastik Yarn Enterprises Limited and to take action another Company Limited wherein the name of M/s.S.R.Sarala & Company was inserted by way of ink and the said fact was admitted by the P.W.1 and thus in the absence of non-examination any of the Directors as to whether the power of attorney agent was given to the present power agent (P.W.1) under Exhibit P1 also covers the respondent case or not cannot be inferred and hence, the trial Court has rightly commented upon the said insertion and corrections held that the power deed is not maintainable, in view of the defects in the power deed. The nonproduction of the alleged document with regard to the alleged transaction, the trial Court is quite right in drawing adverse interference against the appellant and the same cannot be found fault with and thus on entirety of the circumstances, the suggestive case of the defendants as reflected under Ex.R1 issued as early as on 10.02.2013, immediately after the legal notice under Ex.P5, dated 4.2.2003 and non-production of documents relating to the alleged business transaction, non-production of documents receipts and invoices regarding alleged transaction coupled with a fact that Ex.P1 Power Deed is found to be defective, consequently make the appellant case more improbable and unbelievable. On the date of the issuance of stop payment by the respondent/accused is having a amount to the tune of more than one crore, the trial Court quite right holding that respondent has sufficient funds in his account and thereby order of acquittal of the respondent herein and the said finding does not call for any interference - appeal dismissed.
|