Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Mr. Chavan further submitted that, even otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be non-suited on such technical ground. It was submitted that even in the absence of such initial authority, there is no prohibition in law for ratification of action of institution of the suit by the corporation, expressly or by implication. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Chavan, there is evidence to indicate that the Managing Director of the Plaintiff had given authority to Mangesh Ramani, Manager (Finance) - P.W.1 to attend and appear in court on behalf of the company. Moreover, Power of Attorney in favour of the Managing Director of the Company by the board of directors has also been placed on record. Thus, there is implied ratification by the company, even if it is assumed that there is no express authorization.

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 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 comss 5 of 2003.doc signing of the pleading by it's officer." (emphasis supplied)

17. The Supreme Court has, thus, enunciated in clear and explicit terms that a conjoint reading of Order 6 Rule 14 and Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code would indicate that even in the absence of any formal 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 pleading on behalf of the corporation. The Supreme Court went on to further exposit the law that a person may be expressly authorized to sign the pleading on behalf of the company by a resolution of the board of directors or by the power of attorney and, even in the absence thereof, and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers, the corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleading. Such ratification can be express or implied.