9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the authority to institute the suit. 2. Acceptance of costs without prejudice. 3. Ratification of the unauthorized act. 4. Applicability of case precedents and statutory provisions. 5. Allegation of forgery in the Board resolution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the authority to institute the suit: The primary issue was whether the suit was instituted by a validly authorized person. Initially, the suit was filed by Mr. P.K. Vohra, the Manager of the Plaintiff Bank, who did not have the power of attorney at the time. The objection was raised that the Secretary, who later signed the plaint, was also not competent. The court noted that under Order 29, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the secretary or any director or principal officer could sign and verify pleadings but could not institute suits on behalf of the corporation. The institution of the suit should be done by the party in person or by a recognized agent or pleader as per Order 3, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Acceptance of costs without prejudice: A preliminary objection was raised that the applicant could not file a revision petition as they had accepted Rs. 80/- as costs. The court held that the costs were accepted without prejudice to the right to file the revision application, supported by an affidavit from Mr. Inder Das, and no counter-affidavit was filed by Mr. Vohra. Therefore, the preliminary objection was disallowed. 3. Ratification of the unauthorized act: The Plaintiff Bank later ratified Mr. Vohra's actions through a Board resolution dated 18-10-1949 and granted him a power of attorney on 17-5-1950. The Defendant argued that subsequent ratification could not validate the unauthorized institution of the suit. The court distinguished between cases involving statutory bodies like municipalities and joint stock companies. It held that the ratification could cure the defect as the Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Bank allowed the Manager to take such actions with the Directors' sanction. 4. Applicability of case precedents and statutory provisions: The court reviewed several precedents, including cases like 'Secy. Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath' (AIR 1932 Lah 388) and 'Chunnilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand' (AIR 1944 Bom 201), which dealt with statutory bodies and their limitations on delegating the authority to institute suits. It distinguished these from the present case, noting that the Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Bank provided the necessary authority. The court also referred to 'Punjab Zamindars Bank Ltd., Lyallpur v. Madan Mohan Singh' (AIR 1936 Lah 321), supporting the view that subsequent ratification before the expiration of the limitation period was valid. 5. Allegation of forgery in the Board resolution: The applicant alleged that the Board resolution authorizing Mr. Vohra was forged. The court noted that this issue was not raised before the District Judge and suggested that the applicant could seek a review of the decision on this ground. As this point was not pressed during the arguments, the court allowed the applicant to agitate this issue before the District Judge if advised. Conclusion: The court upheld the District Judge's decision allowing the amendment of the plaint, rejecting the revision application. It emphasized that the defect in the authorization was curable by subsequent ratification under the Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Bank. The costs were to abide by the event, and the applicant was permitted to raise the forgery allegation before the District Judge.
|
