Delhi High Court
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Smt. Suman Sharma on 6 December, 2010
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 277/2001
% 6th December, 2010
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri,
Mr. Ayushya Kumar and
Mr. Vaibhav Kalra,
Advocates
VERSUS
SMT. SUMAN SHARMA .... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Ltd. impugns the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2001 passed by Shri
Prithvi Raj, Additional District Judge, Delhi and by which judgment and
decree, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed on the
ground that the appellant has failed to prove the authority of the
officer for signing and verifying the plaint.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant sanctioned a
telephone number to the respondent bearing no. 2463419 on
RFA 277/2001 Page 1 of 6
15.4.1995 at the premises of the respondent at 1/59, Gali No. 3, Main
Road, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. On account of failure of the respondent
to pay the bills for the relevant periods, the appellant filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.1,07,182/- and which was contested. The appellant led
evidence through three witnesses. The suit was however dismissed on
the ground that Sh. S.P.Gupta, who was Sr. Accounts Officer (legal) had
no authority to sign and verify the pleadings. The fact of the matter is
that PW-2 Sh. Qazi Mohd. Iqbal Hussain in fact identified the signatures
of Sh. S.P.Gupta who was stated to be the Sr. Accounts Officer (Legal).
3. In my opinion, the court below has clearly fallen into an error in
dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaint was not duly signed
and verified. In terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, any principal
officer of a corporation, such as the appellant, can sign and verify the
pleadings. It need not be gain said and that an Accounts Officer
(Legal) is definitely a principal officer of the appellant corporation. In
this regard reference may be made to Section 2(30) of the Companies
Act, 1956 which defines an „officer‟ and which provision reads:-
""officer" includes any director, manager or
secretary, or any person in accordance with whose
directions or instructions the Board of directors or
any one or more of the directors is or are
accustomed to act;"
The aforesaid is an inclusive definition. Though there appears to
be possibly a mistake in the language of the said sub-section because
it is an officer who acts on the instructions of the board and not vice
versa which appears to be wrongly stated in this section, it is however
RFA 277/2001 Page 2 of 6
quite clear that an officer of a corporation includes besides a Director
or Manager or Secretary, a person who is having duties as cast upon
him by the Board of Directors and an Accounts Officer is one such
principal officer in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 CPC.
4. This aspect, with respect to the authority to sign and verify the
suit by a principal officer has been dealt with by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd. Vs. State
Bank of Travancore 153 (2008) DLT 239 (DB) and in which, it has
been held that a principal officer is authorized by virtue of Order 29
Rule 1 CPC not only to sign and verify the pleadings, but also therefore
to institute the suit. Paras 23 to 26 of this judgment are relevant and
the same read as under:-
23. This then is the short issue which needs
to beconsidered by us exercising appellate
jurisdiction.
24. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure reads as under:-
" 1 . Subscription and verification
of pleading.-
In suits by or against a corporation,
any pleading maybe signed and
verified on behalf of the corporation
by the secretary or by any director or
other principal officer of the
corporation who is able to depose to
the
facts of the case."
25. Discussing Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, in the decision in United
Bank of India's case (supra),in para 10,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
RFA 277/2001 Page 3 of 6
"Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together
with Order 29 Rule1 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 authorize
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."
26. Suffice would it be to state that in law,
the Secretary, Director or a Principal Officer
of a company would be treated as duly
authorized to institute suit on behalf of a
company. This flows out from a bare reading
of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and as further explained in the
decision in UnitedBank of India's case."
5. Reference may also be made usefully to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar &
others (1996) 6 SCC 660, in which, in para 13, it is said that there is
a presumption of valid institution of a suit once the same is prosecuted
for a number of years. This test as laid down by the Supreme Court is
also satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the suit in fact has been
prosecuted for about two years by the appellant corporation for
seeking an appropriate decree against the respondent by adducing
evidence.
RFA 277/2001 Page 4 of 6
I may note that the appellant is a public sector undertaking
and not a private company where there would be disputes between
two sets of shareholders claiming right to management and one set of
shareholders are opposing another set of shareholders with respect to
control and management of the company. This thus is an additional
fact that there can be no dispute as to the authority of the person
signing/verifying the pleadings and instituting the suit.
6. I may note that in the present appeal the respondent was duly
served as noted by a Division Bench of this court as per its order dated
8.4.2002 but the respondent has failed to appear.
7. Accordingly, in view of the ex parte evidence, as led of three
witnesses of the plaintiff PW-1 (Sh. Shyam Das), PW-2 (Sh. Mohd. Iqbal
Hussain) and PW-3 (Mr. A.R.Goglani) who have proved the factum of
sanction of the telephone connection, its installation, the bills as Ex.
PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 (One of the bill Ex. PW1/4 was paid by the
defendant), the notices Ex. PW 1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, it is clear that the
plaintiff has proved its case for recovery against the respondent.
8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside
and the suit is decreed for the recovery of Rs.1,07,182/- in favour of
the appellant and against the respondent with pendente lite and future
interest at the rate of 14% per annum simple from the date of
institution of the suit till realization. Costs of the suit and the present
appeal are also awarded in favour of the appellant and against the
respondent. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
RFA 277/2001 Page 5 of 6
The appeal is accordingly disposed of as allowed.
DECEMBER 06, 2010 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
