Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that signing and verifying the suit is one thing whereas having the authority to institute the suit is another. There is nothing on record to show that the director, Shri G. Jhajaria, was authorised by the the board of directors of the plaintiff company to file the suit. The plaint has failed to place on record any such resolution. Institution of a suit is different from filing of a suit. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that Shri g. Jhajharia was able to depose to the facts of the case or that he was conversant with the facts of the case. In fact, Shri Ashok Kumar Jhajharia in his statement has himself stated that he was handling the day-to-day management of the plaintiff company including the insurance part. Thus, it can not be said that Shri G. Jhajharia was conversant with the facts and as such in a position to depose to the same. Learned counsel referred to section 14, 26, 28; Schedule I and Table A and section 291 of the Companies Act and contended that all powers of the company are with the board of directors and an individual director cannot, without a specific resolution of the board, institute a suit. The power to institute a suit vests with the board and an individual director can institute a suit only if he is specifically empowered to do so. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of this court in Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt Ltd. v. Observer Publications (P.) Ltd. (Suit No.469 of 1966-26-11-1968), South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Globe Motors (Suit No.68 of 1969 - 19-4-1974), the judgment of the Punjab and Jaryana High Court in National Fertilizers Ltd. v. M.C. Bhatinda (C.R. No.1406 of 1981 - 26-2-1982) and Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Union of India, , in support of this contention. Learned counsel further submitted that Shri G. Jhajharia has signed the plaint as principal officer but there is no evidence on record that he was the principal officer nor there is any evidence to show that he was conversant with the facts of the case . Learned counsel referred to Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules and submitted that Shri G. Jhajharia had no authority to present the suit under these Rules as well. Learned counsel submitted that Order 29, rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure only talks about signing and verification of the pleadings on behalf of the corporation but does not talk about institution of suits. Learned counsel relied on Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath, AIR 1935 Lah 345, Delhi and London Bank Ltd. v. A. Oldham [1893] 2nd 21 Cal 60, State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shree Karan Singh Woollen Mills Ltd. AIR 1960 J 7 K 47 and Food Corporation of India v. Sardarni Baldev Kaur, , and submitted that the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the plaintiff only deal with the question of signing and verification of the plaint and are on totally different facts.

"Here the initiative to institute the suit could be properly transferred to the manager under article 105 of the articles of association and, therefore, the subsequent ratification of the act of the agent by the principal could cure the original defect."

19. Thus, the Division Bench accepted the view that there should be a specific authorisation in favor of a person permitting him to institute a suit.

20. In University of Kashmir v. Ghulam Nabi Mir AIR 1978 (NOC) 114 (J & K), the court has observed that signing and verification of the plaint is different from filing the suit by a competent person.

21. In the case of Food Corporation of India, , while considering the issue whether an application was filed by a competent person, the court has observed that Order 29, rule 1, does not empower an officer to conduct the case on behalf of the corporation. Only the limited power to sign and verify the pleadings has been conferred upon the officer.

22. I find that the judgments on which the plaintiff has relied upon, namely, Mercantile Bank Ltd. (Suit No.11 of 1967 - 10-8-1973), S.B. Naronah, , Bhagwan Swaroop, , and Mst. Barkate [1944] PLR 96, deal with the question of signing and verification of the plaint and not institution of the plaint.