The Supreme Court has stated that procedural defects and irregularities, which can be cured, should not stand in the way of justice, in a case of cheque bouncing. In this case, Haryana State Coop Supply and Marketing vs Jayam Textiles, the federation supplied cotton bales to the company. The four cheques in payment for the purchase bounced for want of sufficient funds. The federation filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The magistrate dismissed it on the ground that the federation had not produced the authorisation of its board of directors to the official who filed the complaint. The federation appealed to the Madras High Court, but it dismissed the appeal again on the ground that the person who filed the complaint had no proper power of attorney. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the courts below were wrong for insisting on technicalities. It remitted the case to the trial court where the federation can show the authorisation which it had failed to do earlier. Commenting on the technicalities relied upon by the courts below, the Supreme Court stated that "procedure, a hand maiden of law, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2014
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 7700 OF 2007
M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY
AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 834 OF 2014
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 20 OF 2008
M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY
AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
The magistrate dismissed it on the ground that the federation had not produced the authorisation of its board of directors to the official who filed the complaint. The federation appealed to the Madras High Court, but it dismissed the appeal again on the ground that the person who filed the complaint had no proper power of attorney. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the courts below were wrong for insisting on technicalities. It remitted the case to the trial court where the federation can show the authorisation which it had failed to do earlier. Commenting on the technicalities relied upon by the courts below, the Supreme Court stated that "procedure, a hand maiden of law, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2014
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 7700 OF 2007
M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY
AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 834 OF 2014
ARISING OUT OF
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 20 OF 2008
M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY
AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
April 07, 2014.
Comments
Post a Comment