Power of attorney holder can depose about the fact within his knowledge in civil as well as in criminal Matters

-
 Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A.C.Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 11 SCC 790 where it was held as under:
"26) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 Page 9 of 13 decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani
(supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N. I. Act through power of attorney is perfectly
legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in
the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I. Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in
support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain
present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power
of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 Page 10 of 13 attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to
another person."

Apart from what has been stated, this Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao observed at SCC pp. 583­84, para 17 that:
“17. Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross­examined by the other
side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct….”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more