Cheque bounce problems-SOLUTIONS

In one of the cases notice is given on behalf of the prop firm by the counsel, but not signed by complainant, only signed by counsel and also the Vakalatnama in favour of this counsel was given after the notice date. 

Yes it is very good point but most of the time the advocates of the accused do not press it properly and courts ignore it.

If sufficient home work is done and all these facts are brought on record thorugh clever cross examination, no court can ignore it and the accused  CAN BE AQUITED.

Even if the notice issued on behalf of the client by a Lawyer is not signed by the client, the same shall not tantamount to a flaw which could be favoring the accused at the time of evidence, as the wordings appearing in the notice are clear "under the instructions and authority of client with name of client"

Tomorrow some advocate in any notice on  some  defferent context say some Govt matter that on intructions of a particular authority or minister the notice is given ,  So IS IT NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT PARTICULAR  AUTHORITY.,on whose intruction the particular notice was given.

In case against proffessional misconduct the SC in Vasant Devlal Bhavsar vs Bar council the apex court has opined that without the vakalatnama on that date the advocate has no authority and so punishment was cancelled.

Under S.138 notice is to be given by payee, now the advocate who sends the notice (even on behalf of client), if has no explicit authority, then which law can rescue the complainant ? Where is the presumption that all advocates if write on behalf of the client has the authority to do so ?

Moreovr under S.138 the notice can be given only once, it cannot be given twice to extend the cause of action, what if complainant misss to file the case within stipulated time and send another notice to save on limitation and argue that earlier notice was invalid in the eyes of law due to non signature (or no authority to counsel). This is a distinct possibility, so under this act (NI ACt) which is a special law, notice must be by someone who has explicit authority at the time of giving notice. In general this does not look fatal, but it is. 

Government has its own panel lawyers Mt. Maru. Here you are mistaken. Facts pleaded in the matter have to be dealt with by way of evidence. Notice is part of evidence. If a person says s/he has not issued the authority to issue notice no such person would use the notice in evidence as well making it as part of case.

Govt or even private companies have advocates on their panel with proper authorisation issued to them at the time of hiring, so these people can give notice on behalf of the client even if client does not sign the complaint as they have the pre existing authority.

Point is under S.138 can a lawyer give notice (gets vakalatnama after that at the time of case) without the signature of  trcomplainant, obviously complainant when confronted will say that he has given oral authority etc.... But is that sufficient under the specific provision of Act for notice by payee.

Please read the SUPREME COURT  Judgement in the case of 

Advocate Vasant Devlal Bavsar vs Bar council of India

and please point out how other than regular vakalatnama how the advocate gets authority oral or otherwise.

State : Andhra Pradesh,  District : Visakhapatnam, Taluka : anakapalle court.    My case details: Calendar Case no 586/2104.    The current status of my case was Trial.... right now I am not in a position to pay the amount to the party, how to escape from this case, currently I am in a big financial crush....

You say the case is for year 2104. pl correct the year.

Give details of the case for solutions.