Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The respondent is right in its contention that a bare perusal of the defect sheet would indicate that when the petition was initially filed, it was without a Vakalatnama, a signed petition and Statement of Truth. Thus all the three vital parameters were missing. In Jay Polychem (India) Ltd. (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that once a petition is unsigned and unsupported by the Statement of Truth, the filing of the petition cannot be termed as „proper filing‟. In so far as the argument of the non-filing of Vakalatnama being a curable defect is concerned, reliance is placed on Uday Shanker Triyar (supra). Having perused the judgments, in my view, the facts and issue in the said case were completely different. Supreme Court therein was dealing with the non-filing of a Vakalatnama alongwith a Memorandum of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that if the pleader signing the Memo of Appeal had appeared for the party in Court(s) below then he need not file a fresh Vakalatnama with the Memo of Appeal as the Vakalatnama filed in Court(s) below would be sufficient to sign and present the Memo of Appeal in light of Order III Rule 4(2) read with Explanation (c) thereto of CPC. In the present case, the petition under Section 34 of the Act is filed in the Court of first instance to challenge the Award and therefore, the said judgment would not help the petitioner. In fact, in the said judgement, the Supreme Court in para 21 has highlighted the importance of filing a Vakalatnama and has taken judicial notice of non-filing or defective filing of Vakalatnamas and has held as under:-