9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant bank was properly instituted. Issue 1: Validity of the Plaint The trial court dismissed the suit due to the issue of whether the plaint was duly signed and verified by a competent person. The appellant argued that procedural defects should not defeat a just cause, especially when a public corporation is involved. The court discussed the requirements under Order 6 Rule 14 and Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a person can sign on behalf of a corporation if duly authorized. The court concluded that the appellant had ratified the signing of the plaint, ensuring that the suit was validly instituted. Issue 2: Recovery of Loan Amount The trial court and the lower appellate court differed on whether the loan amount was validly taken by respondent no.1 and whether the guarantors were liable to pay interest. The lower appellate court found in favor of the appellant, establishing that respondent no.1 had indeed taken the loan and agreed to pay interest. The liability of the guarantors was limited, and no further liability was imposed without proper evidence. Issue 3: Jurisdictional Infirmity The courts emphasized that the suit did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity, and any technical defects were curable. Despite the initial dismissal based on the signing of the plaint, the courts recognized the validity of the claim and the evidence presented by the appellant. The conclusion was that the appellant was entitled to a decree based on the lower appellate court's decision on the substantive issues. Conclusion: The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the suit was decreed in accordance with the decision of the lower appellate court on the substantive issues. The appellant was also awarded costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring that procedural irregularities do not impede justice, especially when a just cause is evident.
|
