9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Failure to prove the plaint had been signed, verified, and instituted by a duly authorized person. 2. Change in name during the pendency of the appeal. Issue 1: The appellant appealed against the dismissal of their suit for recovery due to the failure to prove the plaint had been signed, verified, and instituted by a duly authorized person. The appellant argued that the Power of Attorney had been duly executed and exhibited, invoking Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act to raise a presumption of validity. However, the respondent contended that the appellant had not proven the authorization adequately. The court examined the evidence, noting that the Power of Attorney lacked authentication by a Notary Public, crucial for raising a presumption under Section 85. Citing precedents, the court emphasized the necessity of proving the resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the Power of Attorney's execution. Ultimately, the court found the plaintiff had failed to produce or prove the necessary authorization, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 2: During the appeal, the appellant's application for a change in name from M/s. India Linoleum Ltd. to M/s. Birla DLW Ltd. was allowed. This administrative change was noted in the judgment but did not impact the substantive legal issues under consideration. The court focused on the failure to prove authorization for the suit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs, as the appellant did not take steps to rectify the deficiencies highlighted in the trial court's judgment.
|
