Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

39. Mr. Chaudhri contended that the reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of United Bank of India (supra) by the appellant is misplaced as in paragraph 10 of the said decision the Supreme Court only discusses the authority to sign and verify the pleadings and holds that the action of the officer signing and verifying the pleadings has to be subsequently ratified. Moreover, it is submitted that in the present case, there has been no subsequent ratification by the appellant company, which could have taken place only by passing a specific Board Resolution. Further, there is not even implied ratification as Sanjiv Agrawal (PW-1) was the sole Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001782 witness on behalf of the appellant company and no other officer was produced as a witness, to even establish implied ratification of his action of instituting the suit.

57. That apart, upon a perusal of the history of the present lis, it is also apparent that the appellant, a public sector enterprise has paid the Court Fee in full, has pursued the suit for 18 long years and has lead documentary as well as oral evidence in its name and the pleadings have been signed and verified by its Principal Officer, i.e., the Company Secretary. If that be so, it cannot be presumed that the suit was filed by Sanjiv Agrawal without authorisation of the appellant company. Therefore, there is also an implied ratification of the institution of the suit.