---
title: "No Proprietorship, No Payee: High Court Clarifies Locus Standi for Section 138 NI Act Complaints"
date: 2025-07-17
author: "Ritika Dedhia"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/locus-standi-under-section-138-of-the-ni-act-clarified/
---

# No Proprietorship, No Payee: High Court Clarifies Locus Standi for Section 138 NI Act Complaints

Posted On - 17 July, 2025 •

By - [Ritika Dedhia](https://www.indialaw.in/author/ritika-dedhia/ "Posts by Ritika Dedhia") and [Rahul Sundaram](https://www.indialaw.in/people/rahul-sundaram/ "Posts by Rahul Sundaram")

[![brown wooden smoking pipe on white surface - Section 138 of the NI Act](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/6sl88x150xs-1.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/6sl88x150xs-1.jpg)

## Introduction

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Shirgul Filling Station v. Kamal Sharma (Case No. Cr. Appeal No. 262 of 2010), serves as a crucial reminder of the stringent procedural mandates in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the [NI Act, 1881](https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15327/1/negotiable_instruments_act%2C_1881.pdf). This judgment ultimately upheld the dismissal of a complaint filed by a sole proprietorship, primarily due to the complainant’s failure to adequately prove its proprietorship and the legal standing of the person initiating the proceedings. The High Court’s affirmation of the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint underscores the principle that merely being involved in the business is insufficient; proper legal standing is indispensable.

## Background & Facts

- The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Shirgul Filling Station, a fuel station located at Sanora in Tehsil Rajgarh. The complainant, represented by Ankur Aggarwal, who claimed to be the manager of the fuel station, alleged that Kamal Sharma, a registered government contractor with the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (HPPWD), owed a sum of ₹5,00,000 for petroleum products supplied on credit. To discharge this liability, Kamal Sharma issued a cheque for ₹5,00,000 drawn on UCo Bank Branch Rajgarh.
- Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement “insufficient funds.” Subsequently, Shirgul Filling Station sent a legal notice to Kamal Sharma, demanding payment within 15 days. The notice was returned with the endorsement “refused,” leading to the presumption of service. Following this, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh.
- During the trial, Ankur Aggarwal testified, along with other witnesses. The accused, Kamal Sharma, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., denied the allegations, claimed innocence, and stated that he had not received any notice. He chose not to adduce any defence evidence.
- The core issue that emerged during the trial was the locus standi of Ankur Aggarwal to file the complaint. While Ankur Aggarwal claimed to be the manager, the cheque was issued in the name of “Shirgul Filling Station,” which was stated to be owned by Shivani Gupta. Ankur Aggarwal relied on an authority letter to establish his right to file the complaint. However, this authority letter was issued after the issuance of the notice and the filing of the complaint.

## Legal Issue

- **Core Question:** Can a complaint under Section 138 be maintained by someone other than the proprietor when only a post-hoc letter of authority is presented, and no proof of actual proprietorship exists?
- **Legal Threshold:** Section 138 permits only the “payee or holder in due course” to sue. For proprietorship cases, the proprietor must personally lodge the complaint, or an agent with authority granted before the notice/complaint may do so.

## Legal Findings:

### Trial Court Findings:

The learned Trial Court meticulously examined the evidence and found that:

**1. Lack of Proof of Proprietorship:** There was no conclusive proof presented by the complainant to establish that Shivani Gupta was indeed the proprietor of Shirgul Filling Station. This was a critical gap, as a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its proprietor.

**2. Insufficient Authority to File Complaint:** The authority letter provided by Ankur Aggarwal was found to be issued post-facto, i.e., after the legal notice was sent and the complaint was already filed. The Trial Court held that such a retrospective authorization could not validate a complaint filed by an individual who did not possess the requisite authority at the time of filing. The court also observed that the authority letter could not be construed as a general or special power of attorney, which would typically be required for such legal actions.

**3. Complainant Not the Payee:** Since the cheque was issued in the name of Shirgul Filling Station and not directly to Ankur Aggarwal, and without proper proof of proprietorship, Ankur Aggarwal could not be considered the “payee” in terms of Section 138 of the NI Act. The Act specifically states that a complaint can be made by the “payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course.”

Based on these findings, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the dismissal, Shirgul Filling Station (through Ankur Aggarwal) filed a criminal appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

### High Court Findings:

The High Court later, upheld the findings of the Trial Court, concurring with its reasoning. The court emphasized that:

- For a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act to be maintainable by a sole proprietorship firm, the complainant must either be the proprietor themselves or an individual duly authorized by a valid power of attorney or resolution.
- The mere assertion of being a “manager” or possessing a post-facto authority letter does not suffice to establish the legal standing required to initiate criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour.
- The identity of the payee and the proper authorization to act on their behalf are fundamental jurisdictional prerequisites for a Section 138 complaint.

## Outcome:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby upholding the acquittal of Kamal Sharma. The judgment affirmed the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajgarh. This outcome means that the criminal proceedings against Kamal Sharma for cheque dishonour were definitively terminated due to the procedural deficiencies in the complaint filed by Shirgul Filling Station.

## Conclusion

The case of Shirgul Filling Station v. Kamal Sharma serves as a significant precedent concerning the legal requirements for filing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly when dealing with sole proprietorship entities. The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision underscores the following critical points:

**1. Strict Adherence to Procedural Law:** The case highlights the importance of scrupulous adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings, especially in criminal matters. Even if the factual matrix of a debt might exist, a failure to meet the statutory prerequisites for initiating the complaint can lead to its dismissal.

**2. Proof of Locus Standi:** It is imperative for the complainant to clearly establish their locus standi. In the context of a sole proprietorship, this means demonstrating either personal proprietorship or a valid, legally recognized authorization (such as a power of attorney) to act on behalf of the proprietor. A mere oral claim or a belated authorization will not be accepted.

**3. Timeliness of Authorization:** Any authorization to file a complaint must exist prior to or at the time of filing the complaint and sending the legal notice. A post-facto authorization cannot cure a defect that existed at the inception of the legal process.

**4. Protecting Accused Rights:** The judgment also indirectly protects the rights of the accused by ensuring that they are not subjected to legal proceedings initiated by individuals who lack proper legal standing. This prevents frivolous or unauthorized complaints.

In essence, the ruling in Shirgul Filling Station v. Kamal Sharma is a valuable reminder to all litigants, particularly those representing sole proprietorships, to ensure that their legal representatives are duly authorized and that all procedural formalities are meticulously observed before embarking on an action under Section 138 of the NI Act. Failure to do so, as seen in this case, can prove fatal to the complaint, irrespective of the merits of the underlying financial dispute.

For more details, write to us at: [contact@indialaw.in](mailto:contact@indialaw.in)

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/locus-standi-under-section-138-of-the-ni-act-clarified//pdf/)

[Civil & Commercial Litigation](https://www.indialaw.in/expertise/litigation/civil-commercial-litigation/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---