9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Competence of director in signing the plaint and carrying on the suit. Detailed Analysis: Competence of director in signing the plaint and carrying on the suit: The case involved a dispute regarding the competence of a director, Behal, in signing the plaint and continuing the legal proceedings. The defendants argued that Behal was not duly appointed as a director of the plaintiff company, thus questioning his authority to initiate the suit. The District Judge initially found that any defect in Behal's appointment was cured by section 86 of the Indian Companies Act. However, the appellants contended that Behal's acts post the challenge to his competence were not validated under the proviso to the section. The High Court examined this issue thoroughly, acknowledging the irregularity in Behal's appointment but ultimately concluding that Behal acted as a de facto director and his signing of the plaint was validated by the Indian Companies Act. The Court held that the mere raising of doubts about Behal's position was not sufficient to establish the invalidity of his appointment until a definitive decision was made by the Court. Therefore, the objection regarding Behal's competence was dismissed, affirming his authority to proceed with the legal proceedings. This detailed analysis provides insights into the legal judgment, focusing on the issue of the competence of a director in initiating and continuing a legal suit. The Court's interpretation and application of relevant laws, such as the Indian Companies Act, are highlighted, emphasizing the significance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.
|
