Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Anil Kumar Reddy vs Margadarsi Chit Fund Limited And Ors. on 16 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALT195
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This court ordered notice before admission on 7-10-2005 and in pursuance thereof, the learned counsel representing the first respondent entered appearance. Both the learned counsel made submissions in elaboration and hence, the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. Sri M. N. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would contend that the suit O.S. No. 81 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah was instituted by a Company registered under the Companies Act, represented by its Branch Manager, S. Chandra Sekhar. The learned counsel also would maintain that the plaint was presented on 18-8-2000 and there was no authorization for the Manager to present the suit on the said date. The learned counsel also pointed out the subsequent events and would maintain that even otherwise, there was no subsequent ratification and in any view of the matter, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the reasons recorded by the learned Judge and would contend that the said reasons are unsustainable.
3. Percontra, Sri Rajarao, learned counsel representing the first respondent/plaintiff would maintain that this objection raised is not of such a nature, on the strength of which, the plaint can be rejected. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would maintain that these are all evidentiary details, which need not be gone into at the threshold. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise, at the best, this can be taken as a technical defect on the strength of which, the suit cannot be defeated. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. V. Naresh Kumar and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 3.
4. It is not in serious controversy that an authorization was given by the Managing Director on 5-8-1998 in favour of Chandra Sekhar and the said Chandra Sekhar had presented the plaint. The affidavit filed by the said Chandra Sekhar as P.W.1, because of his transfer, was eschewed and one Seshukumar filed affidavit as P.W.2 and P.W.2 was cross-examined. The authorization given by the Managing Director to the plaintiff Company, dated 6-12-2001 is marked as Ex.A-15. Thus, there are two authorizations, dated 5-8-1998 and Ex.A-15 dated 6-12-2001. The first defendant moved an application I.A. No. 393 of 2005 in O.S. No. 81 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit O.S. No. 81 of 2000 was filed without authorization of the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company. After recording certain reasons, the learned Judge dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition was preferred.
5. The Apex Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association 2005 (6) SCJ 582 : 2005 (6) ALD 27 (SC) : 2005 (6) ALT 54.2 (DN SC) while dealing with this aspect observed that there cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction of words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time it should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair-splitting technicalities.
6. Strong reliance was placed on United Bank of India v. V. Naresh Kumar and Ors. (supra ) wherein at paras 1, 9 and 10 the Apex Court observed as follows:
"The main question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant Bank was properly instituted.
In case like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 liable 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 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 de hors 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. A person may be expressly authorized 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. In M.C.S. Rajan and Co., v. National Nail Industries, Tiruchirapalli and Ors. AIR 1976 Madras 151 while dealing with Order 6 Rules 14 & 15 of C.P.C., held that where a suit was filed in the name of the sole proprietary firm and the plaint verified not by the sole proprietor but by the Manager and the power of attorney was produced during the trial, the Rules were held to be substantially complied with and such suit is maintainable.
The views expressed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in P.J. Joseph v. Suhara Beevi Hussain and that of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Ltd., Madras v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Cochin also may be usefully referred to in this regard.
8. At any rate, in the light of the controversy between the parties, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that this is not a case where it can be said that on the reading of the averments made in the plaint, the suit is barred by any law so as to be amenable for rejection under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.