Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996
29. The observations made in this matter do not come to aid the case of
the plaintiff since the observations of United Bank of India versus Naresh
Kumar and Ors. (Supra) do not deal with the institution of the suit but
with the signing of the Pleadings. Further in the said matter, it was the
Director of the plaintiff company who had signed the pleadings in absence
of a specific authorization.
Rajghria Paper Mills Ltd. vs The General Manager, Indian Security ... on 31 January, 2000
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).
Nibro Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 March, 1990
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).
M/S. Nibro Limited vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 March, 1990
24. Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that signing and
verifying the suit is one thing whereas having the authority to institute the
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 2967/2024 M/s V. Automat and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GMW Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 30
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date:
2025.12.17
15:29:55 +0530
suit is another. There is nothing on record to show that Shri Devendra
Kumar was authorized by the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff to file the
suit. She stated that institution of a suit is different from filing of a suit.
Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that Shri Devendra Kumar
was able to depose to the facts of the case or that he was conversant with
the facts of the case as he himself admitted in his cross-examination that
Sh. Praveen Kumar working with the Plaintiff as sales person dealt with
Sh. Devendra Singh and Sh. Jatinder Singh of the Defendant and
contract/purchase order was finalized. Learned Counsel for Defendant
submitted that Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC only speaks about signing and
verification of the pleadings on behalf of the company but does not talk
about institution of suits. Defendant relied on observations of Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in the matter of Nibro Ltd. vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd., AIR 1991 DELHI 25. It was observed therein as:
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
M/S Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Celem S.A. Of Fos 34320 Roujan, France & ... on 9 December, 2016
30. The reliance of plaintiff on the observations made in the matter of
Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. versus Celem S.A., 2015 (4) BomCR107 for
similar reasons does not support the case of the plaintiff since the said
matter also deals with Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC and Order VI Rule 14
CPC where it was held that even if there is no specific resolution passed by
the plaintiff company authorizing its director to file a suit on behalf of the
company, plaint cannot be rejected and it is at the most a procedural
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
CS (COMM) No. 2967/2024 M/s V. Automat and Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. GMW Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 30
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.12.17
15:30:29 +0530
irregularity in filing a suit which can be cured even during the pendency of
such suit and the plaint, therefore, cannot be rejected on such ground.
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 14 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 291 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
1