In A C Narayan vs State of Maharashtra, the court held that that the powerofattorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. An exception to the above is when the powerofattorney holder of the complainant does not have a personal knowledge about the transactions then he cannot be examined. However, where the attorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the attorney holder alone is personally aware of the transactions, there is no reason why the attorney holder cannot depose as a witness. Nevertheless, an explicit assertion as to the knowledge of the powerofattorney holder about the transaction in question must be specified in the complaint.
Statements about digital frauds in FY24:
1. There was a 166% increase in digital frauds compared to FY23.
2. The total amount involved in ...
Who secured the top position in Time Magazine's poll for its annual TIME100 list?
Consider the following statements regarding the penalties imposed by RBI on certain banks-
I.The Reserve Bank has imposed a Rs 50 lakh penalty on...
Which of the following company became the most valuable brands according to brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance’s report?
Recently which global telecom gear maker company has partnered with Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru to set-up Center of Excellence in networked ro...
The GST Council is considering reducing GST on health insurance from 18% to:
Which scheme of Government of India (GoI) was started to cater the tax disputes in India to put an end to pending direct tax disputes?
What is the key requirement for foreign universities to set up and operate their campuses in India, as per the UGC regulations?
The World Bank has revised India’s economic growth forecast for the fiscal year 2024-25 to:
Ravindra Jadeja recently became the fifth-highest wicket-taker for India in Tests by surpassing whom?