M LAKSHMI Vs. SHANMUGA PRIYA TEXTILES P LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records in C.C. No. 321 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udumalpet, and to quash the same. THE respondent herein, who is the complainant, has filed a complaint under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner herein alleging that for the purchase of 4.2 counts cotton yarn worth Rs. 1, 35, 000 the petitioner herein has issued a cheque dated January 4, 1997, drawn on City Union Bank for Rs. 1, 35, 000 and when presented for collection, it was returned with an endorsement "returned as funds are insufficient". THEreafter, the respondent had sent a lawyer's notice dated May 12, 1997, and the same was received by the petitioner herein on May 15, 1997, and no reply has been sent by the petitioner. THE said complaint is pending in C.C. No. 321 of 1997, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Udumalpet.

(2.) THE cause title shows that the complaint was filed by one K. Rajaram - power of attorney of Thiru Ramakrishnan - managing director of M/s. Shanmuga Priya Textiles (P.) Ltd. As per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, there should be a resolution by the board of directors conferring a specific authority on an individual to represent the company in any matter particularly for filing a criminal complaint. As no such authorisation was given by the board of directors in favour of K. Rajaram, the complaint is not maintainable since the same was filed by K. Rajaram as power of attorney of Ramakrishnan.

(3.) IN that decision it was held (page 56) : "The person connected with the affairs of the company, in the normal run of things may be either its manager, partner, managing partner or director or any other person authorised by the company who can represent it during the course of legal proceedings before the court". IN the instant case though Rajaram was employed in the said company, he has not filed in his capacity as employee, who is the administration of the said company. On the contrary, he has filed the complaints on the basis of the power of attorney dated June 19, 1997, given by Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, managing director. As such Rajaram cannot be said to be a person authorised by the company.