gavel, auction, law-2492011.jpg

Report by Shweta Sabuji

The judgment and order from the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated April 4, 2019, that overturned the Trial court’s orders by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is being contested in the present case of MITA INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus MAHENDRA JAIN.


Mahendra Jain was given a contract by the appellant company, M/s.Mita India Pvt. Ltd., for the relocation of a 33 K.V. electrical overhead line at its Dewas factory. The appellant company unintentionally paid an excess payment in connection with the aforementioned contract. The respondent sent two checks to the appellant company for its return after agreeing to refund the excess money. Cheques were returned due to “stop payment” instructions. By section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, the appellant company filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dewas through its authorized representative Ripanjit Singh Kohli. Respondent made two petitions in the aforementioned complaint. – Kavindersingh Anand cannot testify in court because the complaint nowhere claims that he is aware of the facts and transactions, according to the first allegation that the complaint was not submitted by an authorized person.


Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the company’s authorized representative, submitted the lawsuit on behalf of the appellant company, according to a cursory review of it. Thus, the appellant corporation is filing the lawsuit under its name. It hasn’t been submitted in the power of attorney holder’s name. The appellant corporation, the complainant, is allowed to file the complaint on its behalf through the holder of its power of attorney. 10. The appellant corporation has granted Kavindersingh Anand, one of its directors, a broad power of attorney.

The aforementioned power of attorney was implemented following its proper approval by the board of directors at its meeting on May 1, 2010, which took place. As a result, KavindersinghAnand, one of the appellant directors, business’s is the true and legal representative of the company and holds power of attorney on its behalf. The aforementioned power of attorney expressly grants him the right to choose “counsel” or “special attorneys” to handle every case and to carry out any other actions necessary for the proper prosecution or defence of legal or fictitious judicial proceedings anywhere in the world. The power of attorney mentioned is based on the aforementioned power of attorney, Kavindersingh Anand gave Ripanjit Singh Kohli permission to file the relevant complaint.


The trial court denied the initial application in a ruling dated January 30, 2018. After the second application was turned down on July 23 of this year, a criminal revision was filed and later dismissed by a decision dated September 26. The respondent invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge these three orders. By the contested order, the High Court granted the petition brought under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and directed that the aforementioned orders be set aside because the complaint was not brought by the person authorized and that Kavindersingh Anand, who was granted the power of attorney, lacked legal standing to sub-delegate the said power to Ripanjit Singh Kohli, the designated representative. Second, Kavindersingh Anand is not authorized to testify on the company’s behalf.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *