Delhi High Court
Tata Sons Ltd. vs Shri Manish Pajan & Anr. on 22 March, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 22.03.2011
+ RSA No.116/2006
TATA SONS LTD. ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Shraman Sinha, Advocate.
Versus
SHRI MANISH PAJAN & ANR. ..........Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
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
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
08.11.2005 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge
dated 18.08.2004 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been
dismissed. The reason for the dismissal of the suit was the finding
on issue No. 3 which reads as follows:-
"3. Whether the suit is not signed, verified and filed by duly
authorized and competent person? OPD."
2 Trial Judge was of the view that the plaintiff has failed to
prove that the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly
authorized and competent person. This finding of the trial Judge
was endorsed in appeal vide the impugned judgment.
3 This is a second appeal. It had been admitted and on
11.03.2010, the following substantial question of law was
formulated. It reads as under:-
"Whether the courts below erred on facts and law while construing
General Power of Attorney executed by appellant in favour of Mr. Phiroze A.
Vandreval?"
4 On behalf of the appellant, it has been urged that only
provisions available in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as the „Code‟) for the verification of pleadings by a
competent person are contained in Order 6 Rule 14 and Order 29
Rule 1 of the Code. Attention has been drawn to the aforenoted
provisions. It is stated that a pleading is required to be signed by a
party or in his absence by a duly authorized person. It is submitted
that in the instant case, the pleadings had been signed by Mr.
Phiroze A. Vandreval who was a principal officer of the company
and fits into the parameters of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code. Mr.
S.S. Eashwaran, Executive of the plaintiff company had come into
the witness box to depose on behalf of the company in terms of a
power of attorney Ex. PW-1/1. He had the authority to do so and his
deposition was to the effect that he was deposing on behalf of the
company in terms of a power of attorney Ex. PW-1/1.
5 Record shows that the pleadings had been signed and
verified by Mr. Phiroze A. Vandreval. He has described himself in
the plaint as Senior Vice-President of the company; it is nowhere
his case that he was either the Secretary, Principal Officer or the
Director of the company which are categories of persons who can
sign and verify the pleadings in terms of Order 29 Rule 1 of the
Code. On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. S.S. Eashwaran had come into
the witness box. He was the Assistant Officer of the company; his
deposition was to the effect that he has the authority to depose on
behalf of the company in terms of a power of attorney Ex. PW-1/1.
This power of attorney had been produced in his examination in
chief. The original was seen and returned. In the course of
examination, he had admitted that he has original power of
attorney and he can bring it in Court. This was specifically
recorded in the testimony of the witness. Thereafter, in his cross-
examination which was effected on 12.11.2003 he has admitted
that Ex. PW-1/1 is no longer with him; it stands redeposited back
with the company. A lengthy cross-examination had been effected
of this witness. He had deposed that the suit had been filed by Mr.
Phiroze A. Vandreval and he had authority to verify the plaint in
terms of Ex. PW-1/2. He could not produce Ex. PW-1/2. The
authority of PW-1 to depose on behalf of the company vide Ex. PW-
1/1 was also not produced.
6 These are admitted facts and have come on record. PW-1
inspite of opportunity could not produce either Ex. PW-1/1 or Ex.
PW-1/2. Ex. PW-1/1 was the authority given by the company to PW-
1 to depose on behalf of the company. This has not been proved.
Ex. PW-1/2 was the authority given to Mr. Phiroze A. Vandreval to
verify and institute the pleadings on behalf of the company. This
document was also not proved.
7 Both the fact finding courts have returned concurrent
findings that the suit was thus not filed through a duly authorized
person. These findings do not in any manner call for any
interference.
8 Reliance by learned counsel for the appellant upon the
judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 3 United Bank of India Vs.
Naresh Kumar & Others and the judgment reported in RFA No.
567/1994 Syndicate Bank through nemo Vs. M/s Marwah
Electronics decided on 16.08.2000 are misplaced. The proposition
that a co-joint reading of Order 29 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule
14 of the Code shows that even in the absence of any formal letter
of authority or power of attorney, a person referred under Order 29
Rule 1 of the Code can by virtue of the office which he holds, sign
and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Corporation is not a
disputed proposition. However, Mr. Phiroze A. Vandreval who had
chosen to file, sign and institute the suit on behalf of the company
had nowhere stated that he falls in any of the three categories as
aforenoted in Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code. The Judgment of United
Bank of India is thus not applicable. The judgment reported in
Marwah Electronics is also distinct. In that case, the testimony of
PW-2 had been examined wherein it had been noted that the
original power of attorney executed by the company in his favour
had been brought to the Court; which is not so in the instant case.
9 There is no merit in this appeal. Substantial question of law
is answered accordingly. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MARCH 22, 2011
a
