LexM/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MARKETING A FEDERATION LTD . versus M/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 77 · MIS. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MARKETING A .,, FEDERATION LTD . v. MIS. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2014) APRIL 07, 2014 B [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - ss. 138 and 140 - c Penal Code, 1860 - s.420 - Cheques issued by respondents dishonoured - Complaints filed by appellant-federation - Dismissed by Magistrate - Appeals dismissed by High Court, solely on the ground that 'authorisation' was not produced by the complainant-appellant - High Court held that 'D', claiming D to be the power of attorney holder of the appellant-Federation, had no locus standi to file the complaints/appeals as he had failed to prove that appellant-Federation had authorised him to file the same - Plea of appellant-Federation before Supreme Court that in fact there was an authorisation from the E Board of Directors of the Federation, but the same was not filed along with the complaint - Held: Though authorisation by the Board of Directors of appellant-Federation was not placed before the Courts below, but, specific averment was made by appe/lant~Federation before the Magistrate that the said F General Power of Attorney had been filed in a connected case, which is neither denied nor disputed by the respondents - In any case, if the Courts below were not satisfied, an opportunity ought to have been granted to appellant-Federation to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove G the same in accordance with law - Procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice - Moreover, inspite of arbitration award against the respondents, there was non-payment of amount to appellant-Federation - Opportunity H 77 78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A should be given to appellant-Federation to produce and prove the authorisation before the Trial Court, more so, when money involved is public money - Matters remitted back to Trial Court with direction to conduct trial afresh. 8 The appellant-Federation supplied cotton bales to the respondents. The respondents, to discharge their liability, issued four cheques. However, on presentation, all the four cheques were returned unpaid by the bank 'for want of sufficient funds'. The appellant-Federation filed complaints under Section 138 and 140 of the C Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 IPC against the respondents. The complaints were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and the appeals filed against the said order were dismissed vide impugned judgment passed by the High Court, solely on the ground D that 'authorisation' was not produced by the complainant-appellant. The High Court held that 'D', claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the appellant-Federation, had no locus standi to file the complaints/appeals as he had failed to prove that the E appellant-Federation had authorised him to file the same. The appellant-Federation contended before this Court that in fact there was an authorisation from the Board of Directors of the Federation, but the same was F not filed along with the complaint and on account of this reason only, the complaint was dismissed. Disposing of the appeals and the interlocutory applications, the Court G HELD: 1. Admittedly, authorisation by the Board of Directors of the appellant-Federation was not placed before the Courts below. But, a specific averment was made by the appellant-Federation before the Judicial Magistrate that the said General Power of Attorney has H been filed in connected case being CC No. 1409/1995, HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MKT. FED. 79 LTD. v. JAYAM TEXTILES which has neither been denied nor disputed by the A respondents. In any case, if the Courts below were not satisfied, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant-Federation to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove the same in accordance with law. This is so beeause procedural B defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. [Para 7] [83- c E-H; 84-A] Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) 1 SCC 75: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.