Delhi High Court: Dismisses Petition Challenging Validity of Complaint Filed Under an Invalid Power of Attorney; Holds that Technical Defect Was Rectified by Subsequent Power of Attorney, Validating Proceedings Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition and directed the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings, which have been pending since 2019. The Court ruled that the initial complaint filed under an invalid power of attorney was a technical defect that had been rectified by a subsequent power of attorney, and thus, the proceedings could not be quashed on that ground.

Facts
The petitioner received a loan, in lieu of which two cheques were issued. When the cheques were dishonored with the remark “payment stopped by drawer,” a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of the complaint, arguing that it was filed without proper authority since the original power of attorney was for a different purpose.

Issues
The primary issue was whether the complaint was validly instituted on the basis of an improperly executed power of attorney and whether subsequent rectification of the power of attorney could cure this defect.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed without proper legal authority as the power of attorney initially executed did not authorize the filing of the complaint in question. The petitioner contended that the subsequent power of attorney, which sought to rectify the earlier defect, could not validate the complaint retrospectively.

Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that even though the first power of attorney was incorrectly worded, the defect was a technicality and had been rectified by a second power of attorney that clearly authorized the filing of the complaint. Further, under established legal principles, such rectification should relate back to the original date, making the complaint valid from the outset.

Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed precedents on the validity of complaints filed under a power of attorney, noting that technical defects in such documents can be cured by subsequent ratification. The Court relied on legal principles that ratification relates back to the date of the original act, and the second power of attorney validated the complaint.

Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to multiple cases, including Supreme Court judgments in T.R.L. Krosaki Refractories Ltd. and Jugraj Singh, which supported the view that subsequent rectification of a power of attorney could validate earlier actions taken without proper authorization.

Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the defect in the initial power of attorney was merely a technicality and that it was rectified by the second power of attorney. It found that dismissing the proceedings on this ground would lead to a miscarriage of justice, especially since the loan agreements and dishonored cheques provided sufficient basis for the complaint.

Conclusion
The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial. The Court held that the initial technical defect in the power of attorney had been rectified, and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was valid.