TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h regard to those 5 cheques - Since the 2nd petitioner has issued the cheques in favour of the respondent/complainant, there is no necessity to aver specifically in the complaint that the 2nd petitioner was in charge of day to day affairs of the company and therefore, he can be prosecuted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Authority to represent the respondent/complainant M/s SEW Eurodrive India Private Ltd. - Held that:- Along with the complaint, the authorization issued to Mr.C.V.Shivakumar is filed as document No.25 and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant is not maintainable - There is no reason to quash the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplainant, when the cheques were presented for encashment through their bankers viz. HDFC Bank, Anna Salai branch on 25.03.2009, all the cheques were returned for the reason Exceeds Arrangement on the same date. When the Regional Manager (Sales) of the respondent/complainant company met the 2nd petitioner at his residence on 27.03.2009, he requested the respondent/complainant company to present the cheques on 22.07.2009, However, all the cheques were dishonoured for the reasons Exceeds Arrangement and out of date . Thereafter, the respondent/complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.08.2009 to the petitioners herein and the said notices were returned unserved with an endorsement left . Since no amount was forthcoming, the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to those 5 cheques. He would further contend that the present complaint was filed in the year 2009 and it was returned for various reasons by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and at the time of filing of the complaint, Mr. C.V.Shivakumar was authorized to file the complaint and the Board Resolution, authorizing Mr.C.V.Shivakumar was also filed as document No.25 along with the complaint and therefore, the complaint filed by Mr.C.V.Shivakumar cannot be said to be without any authority. 6. His another contention is that the statutory notices were sent to the correct addresses of the petitioners herein and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is no proper service of notice cannot be accepted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the drawer, it can be recorded that he made demand by giving notice. In any event, the decision as to whether or not service of notice under Clause (3) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be deemed to be sufficient, can be taken only after the evidence is let in and not at the initial stage. 8. Another contention raised by the petitioners is Mr.C.V.Shivakumar has no authority to represent the respondent/complainant M/s SEW Eurodrive India Private Ltd. Mr.N.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this court to the Board Resolution dated 02.09.2011 passed by the respondent/complainant, wherein, one Mr.S.James, Branch Manager - Sales and Marketing was authorized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
