M/S. Satya Narain Sharma (Huf) vs M/S. Ashwani Sarees Private ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1212 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    IA No. 1700/2009 and IA No. 2165/2009 in
                     CS(OS) No. 1439/2008

%                           Date of Decision: April 06, 2009


# M/s Satya Narain Sharma-HUF.
                                                              ..... Plaintiff

!                           Through: Mr. Hemant Chaudhri, Advocate

                                        Versus

$ M/s Ashwani Sarees Pvt. Ltd.
                                                           .....Defendant
^                           Through: Mr.R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with
                                     Mr.Atul Sharma, Mr.Ajay Saroya
                                     and Mr.Abhishek Agarwal for the
                                     defendant.
                                     Mr.Girish Aggarwal with Ms.Mugdha
                                     Pandey for the applicants.


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1.

Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J This order will dispose of two miscellaneous applications being

IA No. 1700/2009 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC and IA No.

2165/2009 under Section 151 CPC filed by Ms. Rina Chawla and Ms.

Asha Chawla for their impleadment in the suit and for opportunity

to them to file their written statements.

2 I have heard Mr. Girish Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the applicants on these applications.

3 Admittedly, the applicants seeking their impleadment in the

suit are the other two Directors of the defendant company. The

written statement on behalf of the defendant company was filed by

its Managing Director-cum-Chairman Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla.

Mr. Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the applicants had argued

that Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla through whom the written

statement was filed on behalf of the defendant is in collusion with

the plaintiff and also he is in collusion with Mr. M.V. Rao, GM, Audit

who was a signatory to the lease agreement. The argument of Mr.

Aggarwal was that Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla has colluded with the

plaintiff to cause wrongful loss to the defendant company and

according to him, the said Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla has admitted

the pleadings of the plaintiff for reasons best know to him. The

contention of Mr. Aggarwal was that the written statement filed by

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla on behalf of the defendant company

was without any authority from the applicants and therefore, an

opportunity is sought on their behalf for filing of their written

statements in the suit.

4 On giving my anxious consideration to the above arguments

advanced on behalf of the applicants, I am of the view that the

applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties in the suit. As

per provisions contained in Order 29 Rule 1 CPC, the pleadings in a

suit by or against a corporation may be signed and verified on

behalf of the corporation either by its Secretary or by any Director

or other Principal officer who is able to depose to the facts of the

case. It may be noted that the defendant along with its written

statement filed through Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla has filed the

extract of the Resolution passed in the meeting of Board of

Directors of the defendant company held on 12.01.2009 authorising

its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chawla to

sign and execute all documents relating to the present suit. Thus, it

cannot be said that the written statement filed on behalf of the

defendant company through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

was without authority of the applicants being the other two

Directors of the said company.

5 It was next argued by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the applicants that Mr. M.V. Rao, GM, Audit

of the defendant company who is signatory to the lease agreement

was not authorised to enter into the lease agreement on behalf of

the defendant company and therefore according to him, reliance

cannot be placed on the lease agreement which is made the basis

of its claim by the plaintiff. I do not find any substance in this

argument because the defendant did not take this objection in its

reply dated 05.06.2008 when they had an opportunity to raise the

objection regarding authority of Mr. M.V. Rao to enter into the lease

agreement. The plea that Mr. M.V. Rao was not competent to sign

the lease agreement on behalf of the defendant company thus

appears to be sham and afterthought.

Having regard to the facts of the case, I do not find any merit

in either of the two applications filed on behalf of the applicants and

the same are, therefore, dismissed.

April 06, 2009                                          S.N.AGGARWAL
a                                                            [JUDGE]