Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S Sew Infrastructure Limited ... on 18 March, 2020
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Vishal Dhagat
1 A.R.No.42/2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
A.R.No.42/2017
State of Madhya Pradesh & another
vs.
M/s SEW Infrastructure Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Aakarsh
Arora, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Dhagat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Jabalpur, dated : 18.03.2020 Per: Sanjay Yadav, J.
This Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against order dated 12.04.2017; whereby, the Tribunal has permitted the respondent-claimant to rectify the verification in the Claim Petition.
2. The Claim Petition arises from the Contract Agreement No.DL-2010-11 dated 25.10.2010 for construction of overflow and non-overflow concrete dam at left flank and design and drawing, fabrication, supply & erection, testing of 10 nos. radial gates, stop 2 A.R.No.42/2017 log unit and gantry cranes with all accessories from RD 1400 to 1800 M of Pench Diversion Project, Chauri, District Chhindwara, wherein, claim of 16.01 crores made as per Clause 4.3.29.2 was rejected on 23.12.2013, which led the contractor file claim petition under Section 7 B of 1983 Act. The claim petition was supported by an affidavit of one Shri B. Subbarangaiah, who also put his signature on the verification in plaint.
3. An objection was raised by present petitioner as to maintainability of the Claim Petition as the same was not signed by "Authorized Representative" who happened to be Shri N.Tirupath Reddy. The objection led the claim petitioner file an application whereby he sought rectification of mistake. The Tribunal overruling petitioner's objection allowed the rectification. It held:
**bl laca/k esa] O;ogkj çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 ds vkns'k 6] fu;e 14 ds ijUrqd dk voyksdu djus ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd&;fn fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr i{kdkj] okn ¼;k fd ;kfpdk½ ij gLrk{kj djus esas v{ke jgk gks] rks mlds }kjk fof/kor~~ vf/kd``r O;fDr ds }kjk&mDr okn ¼;k fd ;kfpdk½ gLrk{kfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa blh lanHkZ esa bl lafgrk dk vkns'k 29] fu;e 1 Hkh voyksduh; gS] ftlds vuqlkj&;fn fuxe ds }kjk ;k mlds fo:)&dksbZ okn ¼;k fd ;kfpdk½ çLrqr fd;k tkrk gS] rks og&fuxe ds lfpo ;k fdlh funsZ'kd vFkok dksbZ vU; çeq[k vf/kdkjh] tks ml ekeys dk vfHklk{; nsus ds ;ksX; gks] ds }kjk&gLrk{kfjr ,oa lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa bl Øe esa gh] *fuxe* ds lkFk&lkFk *dEiuh* ds ekeys esa Hkh&blh çdkj dh fof/kd&fLFkfr curh gS ,oa mYys[kuh; :i ls] ;g çdj.k&e-ç- 'kklu ,oa vU; ds fo:)&TokbaV osapj dEiuh }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk fuekZ.k dk;Z ds xaHkhj&fookn ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj ftu dkj.kksa ls mijksDrkuqlkj of.kZr&dsoy rduhdh nks"k 3 A.R.No.42/2017 ds vk/kkj ij&R;kT; ,oa fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; çrhr gksrh gS vkSj ftu dkj.kksa ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd çfØ;kRed :i ls&,sls nks"k dk ifjektZu&tc fof/kuqlkj laHko gS] rc ,sls rduhdh nks"k dh&fof/kor~~ ifjektZu laca/kh&vuqefr nh tkuh] bl çdj.k ds nf'kZr&rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] fuf'pr gh] mfpr ,oa vko';d ikbZ tkrh gS ¼bl laca/k eas U;k; n``"VkUr&;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bf.M;k fo:) ujs'k dqekj ,oa vU;] ,- vkbZ-vkj-1997 ,l-lh-3 ds vUrxZr~ çfrikfnr&fl)kUr voyksduh; gS] ftlls bl vf/kdj.k ds mijksDr&fofu'p; dks cy feyrk gS vkSj U;k;&n``"VkUr&vklke czqDl fy-fo:) yky cgknqj 1994 ,-vkbZ-,p-lh-1965 ¼xksgkVh½ ds vUrxZr çfrikfnr&fl)kUr Hkh voyksduh; gS½A vr% ;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls çLrqr vkosnu&i= vUrxZr~ /kkjk 17&ch] e-ç- ek/;LFke~~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼vkbZ-,- Øekad&5½ dks U;k;&fgr esa Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ&TokbaV osapj dEiuh dh vksj ls&tujy ikWoj vkWQ vkVkuhZ ds vUrxZr~ vf/kd``r&Jh ,e- frjiFk jsM~Mh ¼tks,l-bZ-mCy;w bUÝLVsªDpj fy] gSnjkckn ds Mk;jsDVj ds in ij inLFk gksuk crk, x, gSa½ dks ;g vuqefr nh tkrh gS fd&os O;fDr'k% mifLFkr gksdj] ;kfpdk dks gLrk{kfjr ,oa lR;kfir djsa rFkk ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= Hkh çLrqr djsaA**
4. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in permitting the claim petitioner to rectify the error, instead of returning the plaint. However, taking into consideration the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660 cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and relied by Tribunal the impugned order does not suffer a jurisdictional error.
5. In United Bank of India (supra) it is held:
4 A.R.No.42/2017
"9. In cases 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.
10. 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 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 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 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 Code of Civil Procedure. 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 5 A.R.No.42/2017 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 it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's 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 it's officer."
6. In view whereof, no interference is caused. Revision fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vishal Dhagat)
Judge Judge
anand
ANAND KRISHNA SEN
2020.03.19 12:09:17
+05'30'