2014 (4) TMI 1020 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - Locus standi to file appeal - authorization to file appeal - Held that - Admittedly authorisation by the Board of Directors of the appellant-Federation was not placed before the Courts below. But, we may notice that a specific averment was made by the appellant-Federation before the learned Judicial Magistrate that the said General Power of Attorney has been filed in connected case, which has neither been denied nor disputed by the respondents. In any case, in our opinion, if the Courts below were not satisfied, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant-Federation to place the document containing authorisation on record and prove the same in accordance with law. In spite of arbitration award against the respondents, there was non-payment of amount by the respondents to the appellant-Federation, and also in the light of authorisation contained in Annexure P/7, we are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, an opportunity should be given to the appellant- Federation to produce and prove the authorisation before the Trial Court, more so, when money involved is public money - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal based on lack of authorization to file complaints/appeals.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against a judgment by the High Court dismissing complaints/appeals due to the lack of authorization from the appellant-Federation to the power of attorney holder, Mr. Davinder Kumar Lal. The appellant-Federation supplied cotton bales to the respondents, who issued four cheques that were returned unpaid. Legal notices under the Negotiable Instruments Act were sent, and complaints were filed against the respondents. The complaints were dismissed for lack of authorization, although the appellant-Federation claimed there was an authorization from the Board of Directors, which was not submitted with the complaint. The Court noted that the authorization was passed in a meeting in 1976, delegating powers to the Managing Director to take legal actions against defaulters. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the appellant-Federation to produce and prove the authorization, especially when public money was involved. The Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remitted the matters back to the Trial Court for a fresh trial considering the authorization provided.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the significance of procedural fairness and the need to consider substantive rights, especially when public money is at stake. The Court highlighted the importance of allowing the appellant-Federation to provide and prove the authorization from the Board of Directors, remitting the matters back to the Trial Court for a fresh trial to ensure justice is served promptly and in accordance with the law.