1930 (8) TMI 19 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Order XXIX, r. 1 and Order VI, r. 14 regarding signing of pleadings by a company.

In this judgment, the High Court of Bombay, comprising Beaumont, CJ and Baker, JJ, addressed the issue of whether a company's pleading can be signed by a person authorized under Order XXIX, r. 1 or if it must be signed by the company itself under Order VI, r. 14. The case involved a company registered in England and India seeking an injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement. The plaint was signed by Mr. C.M. Eastley, an attorney authorized by a power of attorney from the company. The court examined the permissive nature of Order XXIX, r. 1, allowing pleadings to be signed by certain individuals on behalf of a corporation. Additionally, they analyzed Order VI, r. 14, which mandates every pleading to be signed by the party or their authorized representative. The court considered a previous Privy Council decision and concluded that Order VI, r. 14 does apply to companies, and the company can authorize someone to sign on its behalf. The judges found that the company in this case had validly signed the pleading through its authorized attorney. Ultimately, the court held that the order directing the plaint to be taken off the file was technically incorrect, and the appeal was allowed without costs.

In his judgment, Beaumont, CJ, emphasized the interpretation of Order XXIX, r. 1 and Order VI, r. 14 in the context of signing pleadings for a company. He discussed the permissive nature of Order XXIX, r. 1, allowing specific individuals to sign on behalf of a corporation. Beaumont, CJ, rejected the argument that Order VI, r. 14 does not apply to companies, citing a Privy Council decision that did not preclude its application to companies. He reasoned that a company, being unable to sign itself, can authorize someone to sign on its behalf as per the provisions of Order VI, r. 14. Beaumont, CJ, concluded that the company had validly signed the pleading through its authorized attorney, and the order to remove the plaint from the file was technically incorrect. The appeal was allowed without costs, considering the point was not raised in the lower court.

In his concurring opinion, Baker, J, agreed with Beaumont, CJ, and had nothing further to add to the analysis. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the rules regarding signing of pleadings by companies, highlighting the permissive nature of Order XXIX, r. 1 and the applicability of Order VI, r. 14 to companies through authorized representatives. The decision provided clarity on the procedural aspect of signing pleadings for corporate entities, ensuring proper adherence to the rules of practice.