1996 (3) TMI 399 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Application for winding up of a company challenged on the grounds of improper authorization.

The judgment delivered by S.N. Jha, J., pertains to an application for winding up of a company, Zinc Products and Company Private Limited, under sections 433(e), (f), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company contested the application's maintainability, arguing that it was filed through an individual not properly authorized for the purpose, namely, Vinod Singh, the area sales manager of the petitioner-company. The petitioner supported their stance by referring to a power of attorney executed in favor of the managing director and Vice-President Finance, which purportedly delegated authority to Vinod Singh to present the winding-up petition. However, it was observed that the power of attorney did not explicitly authorize the delegation of authority for presenting a winding-up petition. The judgment highlighted the general principle that a delegatee can only delegate powers vested in them, provided they are authorized to do so. The Companies Act was cited to establish that the board of directors is entitled to exercise all powers of the company, and individual directors possess only those powers vested in them by the memorandum and articles of association. The absence of a board resolution authorizing Vinod Singh to present the winding-up application rendered it non-maintainable. The judgment emphasized that the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter, as it can significantly impact the company's policy and finances. Therefore, without specific authorization from the board of directors, an individual director lacks the authority to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the company.

The judgment dismissed the winding-up application on the grounds of non-maintainability, stating that even if the opposite party had issued cheques for the debt amount, which subsequently bounced, it did not constitute an admission of the claim. The court declined to delve into the merits of the claim, emphasizing that the fundamental defect in the application was fatal and not curable, as per the decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The judgment concluded that the lack of authorization from the board of directors to present the winding-up application rendered it not maintainable, and therefore, the application was dismissed.