Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. In response to the preliminary objection on the ground of lack of authority, learned senior counsel submitted that it is a curable defect. He further submitted that the President of King https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 11:38:42 am ) C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023 Point, Taiwan, is ready and willing to appear through video conferencing mode to ratify the institution and prosecution of the suit and to take any other measures in such regard. On this issue, he also referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5594, particularly paragraph 59 thereof, regarding authorizing an individual to represent a company by board resolution, power of attorney or to ratify such actions subsequently. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 660 ('United Bank of India') for the proposition that there can be express or implied ratification of the execution of pleadings on behalf of a company and that substantive rights should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds.

28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 11:38:42 am ) C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023 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 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 dehors 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 11:38:42 am ) C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023 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.” Thereafter, in paragraph 11, the Court held that, even at the appellate stage, the plaintiff could have been called upon to produce the proper power of attorney if the Court was of the view that ratification could not be implied. In effect, the Court concluded that injustice should not be caused on such technical https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 11:38:42 am ) C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023 grounds.