Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2007 Latest Caselaw 273 Del

JUDGMENT

J.M. Malik, J.

1. Although, the Railway Claims Tribunal vide its order dated 20.10.2003 held that two tank wagons bearing No. WR-42619 and NR-74156 containing 22150 and 22260 litres of furnace oil, respectively, were not delivered at the destination station and the appellant had suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 2,76,525/-, yet, it proceeded to dismiss the claim of the appellant on the ground that the application had not been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person. Again no proper claim notice was served upon the respondent. For these reasons, the compensation petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the claimant has filed the above said appeal.

2. The first objection taken by the counsel for the respondent was that this matter should be referred to High Power Committee.

3. I see no merit in this argument because in an authority reported in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. , it was held that disputes under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act are petty disputes and are not directed to be dealt with High Power Committee appointed to resolve disputes between public sector undertakings and Govt. of India in the Ministry. It was held that:

3. The object of issuing direction in those matters was to decide the fiscal disputes in case of major policy matters to save the public money and court's valuable time, and disputes could amicably be settled between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India or the State Governments. The intention was not to resolve the disputes like eviction of a company or Public Undertaking under Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants)Act; such petty disputes are not directed to be dealt with by the High level officers whose otherwise duty and time is of very important nature. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

4. In Canara Bank and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 43, it was held:

In the present litigation there does not appear to be a genuine dispute between the Government of India undertakings. In this case one of the public sector undertaking is shown to be acting not as an undertaking but as Trustee of a Trust. The Board was, therefore, justified in holding "that the real litigation in this case, therefore, is between the Mutual Fund and NTPC" and not between the two undertakings. The claim preferred on behalf of the CBMF was not denied by the Corporation but in turn a counter-claim with respect to the liability of a subsidiary of the Bank was raised. The dispute raised is without laying any basis or placing on record any evidence in support thereof. Imaginative disputes raised only to defeat the undisputed claim of the Trustee could not be made the basis to deprive the Trustees and ultimately the public at large, of the value of the bonds which hand, admittedly, been received by the Corporation with unambiguous undertaking to repay back the same.

Under these circumstances, it is not essential for the Court to send the case to the High Power Committee to give permission for filing this case.

5. The second argument urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent was that the petition for compensation was not properly signed and the power of attorney was not duly proved. He pointed out that only photocopy of general power of attorney was placed on the record and the original was not placed on the record. He did not raise any other argument.

6. This is not the requirement of law that the original power of attorney should be placed on the record. Normally photocopy of general power of attorney is exhibited and the general power of attorney is given back to the party concerned. If the Court or Tribunal has any doubt about the general power of attorney it can ask the party concerned to produce the original general power of attorney. In United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3, it was held:

9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just case. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.

10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6, Rule 14 together with Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example, by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favor of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.

7. It is, thus, clear that the respondent has raised copious objections merely for the sake of cavil. There is no dispute about the gut issue. Instead of throwing down the quanlet, it should have thrown in the towel from the very word go. It would have gone a long way to save time and expenses incurred on this litigation. In the light of this discussion, I accept the appeal and the appellant is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,76,525/- with costs and I also grant interest @ 8% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 27.01.1998 till the realization of the said amount. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court.