M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MARKETING A FEDERATION LTD .versusM/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR.

                           [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
      the same in accordance with law - Procedural defects and           G
      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
                                    77                                   H
    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.

       The appellant-Federation supplied cotton bales to the
8
  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 157 - relied on.

    2. In view of the fact that inspite of arbitration award D
against the respondents, there was non-payment of
amount by the respondents to the appellant-Federation,
and also in the light of authorisation contained in
Annexure-P/7, the extracts of the meeting of the Board of
Directors of the Federation held on 15.04.1976, an E
opportunity should be given to the appellant-Federation
to produce and prove the authorisation before the Trial
Court, more so, when money involved is public money.
The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court with a
direction to conduct trial afresh taking into consideration F
the authorisation placed before this Court. [Para 8] [84- .
B-D]

                    Case Law Reference:
    2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 157      relied on      Para 8        G
    CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 833 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2007 of the
High Court of Madras in CRLAP No. 348 of 2001.                H
    80        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A                                    WITH
    Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2014.

         Umang Shankar, Ravneet Joshi, Ugra Shankar Prasad for
    the Appellant.
B
        R. Basant, B. Raghunath and Vijay Kumar for the
    Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C        N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. The present appeals have been filed against the
    judgment dated 18.06.2007 passed by the High Court of
    Judicature at Madras in Crl. A. Nos. 348 and 410 of 2001
    thereby dismissing the said appeals on the ground that Mr.
D   Davinder Kumar Lal, claiming to be the power of attorney holder
    of the appellant-Federation, has no locus standi to file the
    complaints/appeals as he has failed to prove that the Appellant-
    Federation had authorised him to file the same.

E       3. The facts of the two appeals are - the appellant-
  Federation supplied cotton bales to the respondents of the
  value of Rs.30.45,602/- vide three invoices dated 19.12.1994,
  21.12.1994 and 20.01.1995. The respondents, to discharge
  their liability, issued in total four cheques - two cheques for Rs.5
F lakhs each dated 16.01.1995 and 20.01.1995 respectively and
  two cheques for Rs. 11 lakhs each dated 20.01.1995 and
  25.01.1995 respectively. However, on presentation, all the said
  four cheques were returned unpaid by the bank with an
  endorsement 'for want of sufficient funds'. The appellant-
G Federation sent legal notice(s) dated 19.04.1995 and
  27.04.1995 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
  Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act'), which were duly received by
  the respondents. On failure of the respondents to pay the
  amount within the stipulated time of 15 days from the date of
H receipt of the notice, the appellant-Federation filed complaints
     HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MKT. FED.                     81
       LTD. v. JAYAM TEXTILES [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
  under Section 138 and 140 of the N.I. Act read with Section           A
  420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the l.P.C.')
  against the respondents. The said complaints were dismissed
  by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.02.2001 and the
  appeals filed against the said order were dismissed vide
  impugned judgment dated 18.06.2007, solely on the ground that         B
  the 'authorisation' was not produced by the complainant-
  appellant.

          4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant-
    Federation that in fact there was an authorisation from the Board   C
· · of Directors of the Federation, but unfortunately, the same was
    not filed along with the complaint and on account of this reason
    only, the complaint was dismissed, and as a matter of record,
    the said authorisation delegating powers was passed in the
    meeting of the Federation on 15th April, 1976 and an
    opportunity to the appellant-Federation could have been             D
    afforded by the Courts below to furnish the authorisation,
    particularly when the appellant-Federation is a Public Sector
    Undertaking and money which has to be paid by the
    respondents is public money. In support of his submission,
    learned counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure-P/7, the        E
    extracts of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the
    Federation held on 15.04.1976, which. are in the following
    terms:

        "14 DELEGATION OF POWERS                                        F
        The Board of Directors of the Haryana State Co-operative
        Supply and Marketing Federation in their meeting held on
        15.4.1976 resolved to delegate the following powers to the
        authorities mentioned against each and to the extent
        indicated as under.                                             G

        Delegation of Powers to various officers of the Federation.


                                                                        H
    82          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A        Sr.    Nature of Powers         Authority to       Extent
         No.                             whom               of powers
                                                            delegated

         1             2             3                         4
B
         (A) Administration

         1 to 23 xx                 xx                        xx
         24. Institution and defence of legal proceeding etc.
c         i)     To institute, conduct,      M.D.            Full Power·
                 defend, compromise,
                 refer to arbitration and
                 abandon legal or other
                 proceedings and claims
D
                 and also to file appeals,
                 revisions, review petitions
                 and executing by and
                 against the Federation
                 and also to engage lawyers
E                 for that purpose from time
                 to time.

          ii)    To give general power of        M.D.       Full Power
                 attorney to any person I
F                officer for conducting the
                 cases in Courts etc.

         (B) Financial Administration

         25 o Category B            xx xx                          xx"
G
       5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Federation further
  submitted that it is in pursuance of the above-said delegation
  of powers to the Managing Director, the general power of
  attorney in question was executed by him authorising Mr.
H Davinder Kumar Lal to take civil and criminal action against the
   HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MKT. FED.                       83
     LTD. v. JAYAM TEXTILES [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
  defaulters including the respondents herein. He, therefore,           A
  prayed to remit back the matter to the Trial Court with a direction
  to consider the whole issue taking into consideration the
  authorisation delegating powers to the Managing Director as
  passed by the appellant-Federation in its meeting held on 15th
  April, 1976.                                                          B

         6. Learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other
   hand, contended that several years have already been passed
   in the litigation and despite sufficient opportunity has been
   granted by the Courts below, the appellant-Federation has
   failed to produce authorisation and hence there is no reason         C
   for this Court to interfere at this stage. When the matter was
·· listed before us on 11.03.2014, a specific query was, however,
   put to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
   as to whether the respondents have paid the amounts which
   are due and payable to the appellant-Federation. It was              D
   submitted, on instructions, that, in fact, arbitration had taken
   place and even the award had been passed against the
   respondents, but the respondents have not complied with the
   terms of the award so far.
                                                                        E
       7. Having heard learned coun·sel for the parties and after
  perusing the material on record, we find that admittedly
  authorisation by the Board of Directors of the appellant-
  Federation was not placed before the Courts below. But, we
  may notice that a specific averment was made by the appellant-        F
  Federation before the learned Judicial Magistrate that the said
  General Power of Attorney has been filed in connected case
  being CC No. 1409/1995, which has neither been denied nor
  disputed by the respondents. In any case, in our opinion, if the
  Courts below were not satisfied, an opportunity ought to have         G
  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 because procedural defects
  and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to
  defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a         H
    84        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny
    justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive
    use. {See Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Ka/ewar Prasad
    Singh, (2006) 1 sec 75}.

       8. In view of the fact that in spite of arbitration award
8
  against the respondents, there was non-payment of amount by
  the respondents to the appellant-Federation, and also in the light
  of authorisation contained in Annexure-P/7, we are of the
  opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an
C opportunity should be given to the appellant-Federation to
  produce and prove the authorisation before the Trial Court,
  more so, when money involved is public money. We, therefore,
  set aside the judgments of the Courts below and remit the
  matters back to the Trial Court with a direction to conduct trial
  afresh taking into consideration the authorisation placed before
D us and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in
  accordance with law.

        9. The appeals and the interlocutory applications stand
    disposed of accordingly.
E
    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                    Appeals & IAs disposed of.