9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised by the company to file the suit and the authority letter given by Shri Raj K. Shukla was not sufficient to entitle him to do so. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2011 - G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ. J.L. Gupta, Amit Wadhwa, Sanjay Bhatt and S. Mahendran for the Appellant. JUDGMENT 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal preferred by respondent M/s. Kingston Computers (I) (P.) Ltd. ("the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course and in good faith as alleged in paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement if so its effect ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount ? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period ? (7) Relief ?" 6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial court decided all the issues except issue No. 1 in favour of the company but dismissed the suit on the ground that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the same. 7. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal of the company, reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit by relying upon the letter of authority issued by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Shri Raj K. Shukla, the chief executive officer vide authority letter dated 2-1-2003, to do the following things : ( i )to sign, verify and file a suit for recovery on behalf of the company against the State Bank of Travancore, R.K. Puram Branch, New Delhi. ( ii )to sign, verify and file any document, application to lead evidence, make statement or compromise the matter before the hon ble court, ( iii )to appoint any advocate or pleader or counsel and to sign vakalatnama, ( iv )to represent the company or appear on its behalf before the concerned court, any public authority or Tribunal and to represent for the purpose of representing the company, and ( v )to do all other acts, deeds and things whatever is necessary for pursuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n authorising Shri Raj K. Shukla to take decisions independently. He also claimed that he had been given power of attorney on behalf of the company, which was filed on record. He however admitted that no resolution was passed by the board of directors authorising him to sign, verify and file the plaint. 14. The trial court analysed the pleadings and evaluated the evidence produced by the parties, referred to the authority letter dated 2-1-2003, issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla in favour of Shri Ashok K. Shukla and observed: "A perusal of the aforesaid authority letter shows that Shri Raj K. Shukla in his capacity as CEO of the plaintiff-company had authorised Shri A.K. Shukla to sign, verify and file the present suit. Apart from this auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, I held that the plaint has not been instituted by an authorised person. Issue No. 1 is accordingly, decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants." 16. The Division Bench of the High Court did take cognisance of the fact that the company had not summoned any witness from the office of the Registrar of Companies to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was a director of the company and that the minute book of the company had not been produced to prove the appointment of Shri Ashok K. Shukla as a director, but reversed the finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 on the basis of the authority letter issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla and resolutions dated 14-2-2001 and 19-4-2001, by which the board of directors of the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
