9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Authority of the person filing the suit under Order 37 CPC. 2. Validity of the suit under Order 37 CPC based on written contracts. Analysis: Issue 1: Authority of the person filing the suit under Order 37 CPC The primary contention raised was the authority of the person filing the suit under Order 37 CPC. The defendants challenged the authority of the individual filing the suit, arguing that the power of attorney submitted was not notarized initially. However, it was highlighted that Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act presumes the authenticity of a power of attorney executed before a Notary Public or any other authorized entity. The court emphasized the need for strict scrutiny of the power of attorney, stating that it should confer authority explicitly or by necessary implication. In this case, a fresh notarized power of attorney was submitted later, ratifying the actions taken by the individual. The court concluded that the defect in notarization was cured before the summons for judgment were served, making the suit properly instituted. Issue 2: Validity of the suit under Order 37 CPC based on written contracts The second issue revolved around the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 CPC based on written contracts. The plaintiff contended that the suit was valid under Order 37 CPC as it was rooted in written contracts, specifically purchase orders. The defendants raised a counterclaim regarding the supply of goods to another party based on alleged instructions. The court analyzed the nature of the written contracts, emphasizing that purchase orders constituted valid written contracts. Additionally, the court considered the counterclaims raised by the defendants and directed them to deposit a specified amount as a condition to contest the suit. Ultimately, the court granted unconditional leave to one of the defendants based on the triable issue raised regarding the export articles. The judgment highlighted the importance of written contracts in determining the validity of suits under Order 37 CPC and the need to address counterclaims effectively to ensure a fair legal process. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of authority in filing the suit under Order 37 CPC and the validity of the suit based on written contracts comprehensively, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and legal procedures in legal proceedings.
|
