HYDERABAD LAMPS LIMITED Vs. ASIATIC OXYGEN LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are directed against the orders passed in crl. M. P. Nos. 1382 and 1383 of 1996 in C. C. Nos. 214 and 215 of 1995 dated November 7, 199 6 , on the file of the judicial Magistrate No. II, Wallajahpet, dismissing the discharge petitions in respect of two cheques dishonoured. The complainant/respondent herein filed two complaints against the petitioner. On appearance, the petitioner filed a petition for discharge of the proceedings, before the lower court raising various points. But, the discharge petitions were dismissed by the trial court on upholding the submissions made by the complainant and held that the complaints were maintainable. Hence, this revision. Mr. B. K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner, has urged the following points : Inasmuch as the cheques were drawn in the name of asiatic Oxygen Ltd. the complaint by its deputy manager on behalf of the company is not maintainable, in the absence of any power of attorney. In respect of the two cheques the complainant ought to have issued two separate notices. The amounts of the cheques have been clubbed together in one single notice claiming a total sum of Rs. 1, 37, 854 together with interest. As per the statute, the complainant could demand only the amount of the cheques, and not anything more than that. Therefore, the notice is not valid. In support of these submissions, counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions in Gopa Debi Ozha v. Surjit Paul 1995 Crl. LJ 3412, in respect of the submission that in a notice, only the cheque amount could be demanded, and not anything more than that, and Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. Selvamani (K. S.) in respect of the submission that a company should be represented through a person who is authorised to represent it. Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. I am not able to agree with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons : (i) In this complaint, the cause title shows Asiatic oxygen Ltd. represented by its deputy manager, S. R. Vaithiyanathan, as the complainant. Therefore, the complaint has not been initiated in the, name of vaithiyanathan, the deputy manager, but it has been filed in the name of the company only. The company, being a corporate body, not having soul, mind and body could only be represented by some human agency before the court. In that way, the complainant, viz. , the company is duly represented by its representative, the executive director, as he is an executive of the company and it is also a part of his employment to represent the company before all courts and authorities and no power of attorney is necessary. I am fortified in my view by the decisions in Sagayadurai v. J. D. Electronics 1997 1 LW (Crl.)297 and Gopalakrishna Trading Co. v. D. Baskaran. In sudesh Kumar Sharma v. Selvamani (K. S.) relied on by counsel for the petitioner, the cause title shows the complainant as one Selvamani, the manager of G. D. International, Narayana Nagar. Therefore, this court has come to the conclusion that the complaint was filed in the name of the individual officer and not in the name of the company. So, this decision would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. (ii) No doubt, it is true that in a single notice the amounts covered by two cheques were demanded, whereas the complaints were filed separately. The reading of the notice would show that there are clear details about the numbers of the cheques and the amounts separately. The total sum was calculated and clubbed together. Mere adding of interest would not be construed to mean that more amount has been demanded than the cheque amount. The decision relied on by counsel for the petitioner in Gopa Debi Ozha v. Surjit Paul 1995 crl. LJ 3412 does not deal with the interest accrued over the cheque amount. In that case, the cheque amount was Rs. 5, 79, 000 whereas the demand was made for a sum of Rs. 6, 50, 000. Hence, this decision would not also apply to this case. In this case, it is specifically mentioned that the total amount of two cheques is Rs. 1, 37, 854. Moreover, in Revathy (V. P.) v. Asha Bagree it has been held that it may be a part of a larger claim, but yet if the claim is made with regard to the cheques covered by the complaint, that would amount to compliance with the requirements of section 138 (b) of the Negotiable instruments Act. Therefore, the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner do not have any substance, and therefore, these revisions and the Crl. M. Ps. are dismissed. .