From your query it is not clear, who is the “Holder of Cheque”, either you personally or on the name of Firm.
A juristic person or corporeal person, cannot speak itself, but is to be represented, by a duly authorized person. In that case, the cheque, was in favour of the company (juristic person), which was
It is cited in : M/S Surindera Steel Rolling vs Sh. Sanjiv Kumar S/O Sh. Baij Nath on page 4 of the Judgment attached in rar file, as :
In M/s Capital Leasing and Finance Company's case (supra), it was held that the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932, are not applicable to a complaint, filed by an un-registered firm. In that case, a criminal complaint, under Section 138 of the Act, was filed, by an unregistered firm through one of its partners, who was duly authorized. In these circumstances, it was held that he was a competent person.
It is observed in : Asit Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr. on page 2 of the Judgment attached in rar file, as :
“Though reference was made to learned Single Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case between Saraswati Trading Company Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., as reported in 2007 CRI. L. J. 895, I find it difficult to find any justification for such reference. In the present case, a cheque under reference was issued in the name of the firm and even assuming it to be unregistered, there could be no reason as to why one of the partners could not have initiated the case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that too, after being equipped with an 'authorization'”.
Please find attached the above judgments in your favour including some other judgment against your case.