Delhi High Court
Hcl Comnet Systems & Services Ltd vs Kukum Arora on 12 October, 2011
Author: J.R. Midha
9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 44/2010
% Date of decision: 12th October, 2011
HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Bharat Ahuja and
Mr. Sumeet Batra, Advs.
versus
KUKUM ARORA ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment
dated 12th October, 2009 whereby the learned Trial Court has
dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery on the ground that the
suit has not been filed by a duly authorized person.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies
Act and the suit has been instituted by the Company Secretary,
Mr. Verinder Khashu. It is submitted that the plaint was signed
and verified by the said Company Secretary. It is further
submitted that the Company Secretary also appeared in the
witness box as PW-1 but he resigned before his cross-
examination could take place and, therefore, the appellant
produced another witness, Mr. Ashish Garg who proved his
authority to continue the suit. The learned Trial Court held that
Mr. Verinder Khashu was not the Director of the appellant -
Company and, therefore, it was necessary to prove the resolution
of the company in favour of Mr. Verinder Khashu.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that
the Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that
the plaint can be signed and verified by the Secretary, Director or
other Principal Officer of the company who is able to depose to
the facts of the case. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court
misread Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure. The learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of
India vs. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3. The Supreme Court
held that a Director or Secretary can sign and verify the
pleadings on behalf of the company by virtue of the office they
hold even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or
power of attorney. It is further submitted that the respondent
had not disputed that Mr. Verinder Khashu was the Company
Secretary of the appellant - Company and in that view of the
matter, no resolution was required to be proved under Order XXIX
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. There is merit in the submissions made by learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant. The suit was validly instituted by Mr.
Verinder Khashu as the Company Secretary of the appellant -
Company. The finding of the learned Trial Court with respect to
issue No.2 is set aside and it is held that the suit was instituted
by the duly authorized person. The learned Trial Court has not
given a clear finding with respect to the other issues before it.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned
judgment and decree is set aside. Issue No.2 is decided in favour
of the appellant and the suit is held to have been instituted by a
duly authorized person. With respect to the remaining issues, the
case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court who shall decide
the same after hearing both the parties. The learned Trial Court
shall endeavour to decide the matter within a period of four
months.
6. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned
District Judge (South) on 1st November, 2011 when the learned
Trial Court shall fix the date for hearing the parties. The LCR be
sent back forthwith. Copy of this order be sent to the respondent
as well as his counsel.
J.R. MIDHA, J
OCTOBER 12, 2011/aj
