Delhi High Court
M/S Venus Home Appliance (P) Ltd vs M/S Sujit Kanoria & Anr on 2 August, 2016
$~A-25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.08.2016
+ CM(M) 940/2015 and CM No. 22485/2015 (stay)
M/S VENUS HOME APPLIANCE (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K.Aggarwal and Ms.Parul
Singa, Advocates.
versus
M/S SUJIT KANORIA & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anand Mishra and Mr.Amrendra
K. Singh, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated
03.09.2015 passed by the trial court. By the said order, the trial court
dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151
CPC for placing on record Power of Attorney in favour of Sh.S.Uday against
the Resolution dated 03.12.2007 which is already on record.
2. The trial court noted that the suit had been filed in 2007 and now the
GPA which is sought to be filed is dated 24.04.2015 and hence, was not in
existence in the year 2007. Relying upon Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, the trial
court noted that the new document can be produced by the plaintiff at the
final hearing of the suit but the same has to be done with the leave of the
court. The trial court also noted that the only reason given for filing these
documents at this belated stage is "on account of inadvertence and oversight
that the said documents could not be filed earlier and to rectify technical
error raised by the counsel for the defendant". The trial court further
concludes that it is apparent that all these documents were throughout in
power and possession of the plaintiff and hence, the application was
dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the
Resolution dated 03.12.2007 passed by the petitioner company authorises its
Branch Manager-Sh. S.Uday to take steps regarding the suit in question. He
further submits that as per the last para of the resolution, the Director of the
Company was authorised to sign and execute necessary power of attorney in
favour of Sh.S.Uday to give effect to such Resolution. He submits that it was
a mere technical argument raised by the defendant and to overcome this
technical argument, the petitioner wishes to place on record the Power of
Attorney dated 24.04.2015 executed in pursuance to the Resolution dated
03.12.2007. He relies upon several judgments including the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar and
Ors., 1996(6) SCC 660 to contend that such document at this stage should
have been allowed to be taken on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the petition contending that a specific issue had been framed
regarding the power of Sh.S.Uday to institute and sign the pleadings. He
submits that despite this specific issue, the petitioner has chosen to be
careless and negligent and not bothered to take steps to complete their
evidence. He submits that it is only in the course of final argument when the
counsel appearing for the respondent had pointed out this defect in the case
of the petitioner, the petitioner has belatedly woken up. He submits that there
are no grounds or basis to interfere with the impugned order.
5. A perusal of the Resolution dated 03.12.2007 shows that it authorises
Sh.S.Uday to sign and execute the petitions, vakalatnama, to engage lawyers,
etc. in respect of all suits and proceedings. The last para of the Resolution
states that the Director of the Company may sign and execute necessary
power of attorney in favour of Sh.S.Uday to give effect to the said
Resolution. The power of attorney which is now executed on 24.04.2015
seeks to reproduce the contents of the said Resolution.
6. The supreme court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Naresh
Kumar and Ors.(supra) in para 10 held as follow:-
"10. In cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can
sue and be sued in its in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14
of the CPC 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 CPC, 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 CPC 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 an de
hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, 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 CPC. 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 favour 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. Hence, the legal position that would follow from above is where the
pleadings are signed by one of the officers of the Corporation, the
Corporation can rectify the said action of its officers and that such
rectification can be expressed and implied. It is clear that the courts have
taken a liberal view in regard to the issue of authority of the person signing
the pleadings and instituting the suit.
8. I may also note that admittedly, the Power of Attorney in this case is
of 24.04.2015 yet the impugned order has come to a conclusion that these
documents were throughout in power and possession of the plaintiff. The
only document which is sought to be placed on record is the Power of
Attorney dated 24.04.2015. It cannot be said to be in power and possession of
the petitioner prior to the said date i.e. 24.04.2015. Hence, it would be
appropriate that the petitioner is allowed to place the Power of Attorney on
record.
9. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 03.09.2015 is set
aside. The petitioner is permitted to file the original Power of Attorney dated
24.04.2015. Needless to add, observations made herein will not in any
manner prejudice the parties at the time of final disposal of the suit by the
trial court. Any observation made herein will not amount to adjudication of
any dispute pending between the parties.
10. With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of.
AUGUST 02, 2016/rb JAYANT NATH, J
