MANGALA PETROLEUM ASSOCIATES Vs. MAHESH MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The payee is a proprietary concern. The Power of Attorney of the payee, who is incidentally son of the payee, has filed the complaint under Sec. 138 NI Act. The Power of Attorney was not produced before the trial Court. The petitioner, who is an accused in the said complaint, has filed this petition for quashing on the ground that the complaint is filed by an incompetent person.

(2.) Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Finance and Investments Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 536. In para 11 of the said decision, the following observations are made:

(3.) The respondent, who has filed the complaint as a Power of Attorney, has, now, produced the copy of the Power of Attorney in this proceeding. On perusal of the terms of the Power of Attorney, it nowhere discloses that the Power of Attorney has been authorized to institute the legal proceedings. The Power of Attorney contains authorization to deal with the banks and for entering into contracts but there is no authorization to initiate legal proceedings. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the absence of specific authorization for initiation of legal proceedings, the complaint filed is illegal.