Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. vs The General Manager, Indian Security ... on 31 January, 2000

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs Mrs. Saroj Mahani on 7 March, 2012

14. The above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the M/s Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. General Manager, Indian Security Press and Another AIR 2000 Delhi 239 and it was held (in para 20 of the Judgment) that 'unless a power to institute suit is specifically conferred on a particular director he has no authority to institute the suit on behalf of the company. It must therefore follow that although the plaint was signed and verified properly but the suit was not instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff.'
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S V. Automat And Instruments Pvt. Ltd vs Gmw Pvt. Ltd on 17 December, 2025

However, in the present case, Mr. Devendra Kumar, who signed the pleadings and represented the Plaintiff including appearing as the sole witness of the Plaintiff, is working with the Plaintiff company as Legal Assistant and is not the Director of Plaintiff Company and therefore the Plaintiff cannot seek any shelter even under provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC and Order VI Rule 14 CPC which are even otherwise not applicable to institution of the suit as held in the matter of Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. vs The General Manager, Indian Security, (Supra) and M/s. Nibro Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Klipco Sales P. Ltd vs M/S R. L. Khandelwal & Sons on 27 March, 2010

It AIR 2002 Delhi 239 titled as Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. General Manger, Indian Security Press and another it has been held as under:­ "Company Act (1 of 1956), S. 291 - Company Director - Not competent to file suit on behalf of company, unless specific power is conferred upon him - No Proof tendered in instant case to provide that the Director, who filed the suit was duly so authorized."
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Apple Valley Resort vs H.P. State Electricity Board And Anr. on 4 September, 2003

11. The question whether a director of the company, in the absence of a specific authorisation could initiate an action for and on behalf of the company, also came up before the Delhi High Court in Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. v. General Manager, Indian Security Press, AIR 2000 Delhi 239. In this case, the plaintiff-company had filed a suit through its director for the issuance of a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants therein from enforcing the bank guarantee and from receiving any amount thereunder, and for a decree of Rs. 9,34,036.83 with interest and costs. One of the issues framed (being issue No. 3) was--whether the plaint has been signed, verified and presented by a duly authorised person ? If not, its effect ?
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 23 - R L Khurana - Full Document

John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Dr. Surinder Singh And Ors. on 5 December, 2006

4. In the replication filed by Respondent No. 1, besides denial of the contents of the written statement, an additional plea was taken that the written statement had not been signed and verified by the authorized person on behalf of the Petitioner and hence, the objections in the written statement were liable to be ignored and the petition allowed. The written statement filed by the Petitioner was signed by Mr. Mohd Farooq, Managing Director of the Petitioner Company. The learned Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC), on consideration of the pronouncements of this Court in Rajgriha Paper Mills Ltd. v. General manager Indian Security Press (2000) II AD (Delhi) 863, and Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co Ltd. , the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Food Corporation of India v. Sardarni Baldev Kaur and Ors and the provisions of Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, came to the conclusion that the written Statement is out rightly liable to be rejected on this ground as not signed and verified by a duly authorized person.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 84 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next