9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry was not a competent person to institute the suit nor could he sign and verify the plaint. This objection was made an issue between the parties. Eventually on 28th Baisakh, 2008 an amended plaint was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank with an application for permission to file the same in which it was stated that the plaint had been duly signed and verified by Mr. Vohra, Manager of Jammu Branch on behalf of the Bank but it transpired that Mr. 'Vohra had no power of attorney on behalf of the Bank at the time but the Plaintiff Bank by resolution of the Board No. 20 dated 18-10-1949 confirmed and ratified the action of Mr. Vohra and that he was given a power of attorney dated 17-5-1950 by the Bank authorising him to institute suits and do other acts specified therein on behalf of the Plaintiff. This application was opposed on behalf of the Defendant applicant on the main ground that the subsequent ratification by the Plaintiff Bank could not validate the institution of the suit by Mr. Vohra and that the suit should be thrown out and no permission for amendment given to the Plaintiff. The learned District Judge, after hearing arguments on the point, disallowed the objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation, if the initiative to institute the suit was not taken by the corporation itself, it cannot, by subsequent ratification, validate the action of a person instituting the suit, if at the time of the institution of the suit he was not competent or authorized to institute it. In support of this contention Mr. Inder Das cited before me-'Secy. Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath', AIR 1932 Lah 388 ;-'Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath', AIR 1935 Lah 345 -'Tila Mahomed Haji Mahomed Amin v. Municipal Committee, Peshawar', AIR 1941 Pesh 76 -'Chunnilal Bhagwanji v. Kanmal Lalchand',: AIR 1944 Bom 201 (D);-'Dr. Satya Charan Law v. Rameshwar Pro-sad', AIR 1950 PC 133 : AIR 1932 Lah 388 is a case in which the Plaintiff was the Notified Area Committee, Okara. The suit had been brought by the secretary without consulting the Notified Area Committee and without any resolution of that Committee having been passed for the purpose, Later on, however, the Committee passed a resolution delegating power to bring suits on behalf of the Committee to the Secretary. In this case Dalip Singh J. held, inter alia, that a suit must be decided t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutes by which those authorities were created none of the case cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant related to a joint stock company. So far as-: AIR 1944 Bom 201 (D)' was concerned, he referred to a later Bombay case-'Dahyabhai Girdhardas v. Bobaji Dahyaji', AIR 1953 Bom 28 (F), in which the view taken by Sir John Beaumont was departed from by the present Chief Justice. It was held in-AIR 1953 Bom 28 (F)', that the learned Chief Justice in-AIR 1944 Bom 201 (D)' was in error in the view that he took . It was laid down that a plaint signed by the son of the Plaintiff who had no proper authority to sign it on behalf of the Plaintiff can be allowed to be amended at a later stage by allowing the Plaintiff to sign irrespective of the bar of limitation, inasmuch as the defect is merely formal. Mr. Mahajan referred to a number of other cases out of which he laid special stress on ILR 25 All 635 . In this case the plaint in a suit on behalf of the Maharaja of Rewah, a Ruling Chief, had been signed and filed by one Abdul Rehman who was not a recognized agent at the time when the suit was filed under Section 432, Civil Procedure Code as then in force. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the company, of all debts, advances claims due to the company. He has to have further power to take and use all lawful proceedings and means for re-covering and receiving the said debts and advances, and also to commence and prosecute and to defend at law all actions, suits, claims etc. etc. Now it appears to me that there is no provision in the Municipal Act corresponding to Article 105 of the Articles of Association of the Plaintiff Bank and It can, therefore, be appreciated why the institution of suits under the two Lahore cases by the Secretaries of the Committees was held to be un-authorized and illegal. In this connection the following passage from- AIR 1932 Lah 388 (A)' is very significant: On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that a Corporation, which is a statutory body, derives all powers solely from the statute and that there is nothing in the statute which empowers any delegation of the right to bring civil suits to a particular person, and that it stands to reason that as the right to bring suits involves the expenditure of money in each particular case, the Corporation must decide to bring the suit and can only de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titute the suit was involved. In this case too there was a provision in the Memorandum of Articles of Association like the one contained in Article 105 of the Plaintiff's Articles of Association in the present case. There it was Article 106. The ruling does not challenge the authority of the agent to institute and continue the suit, in a case in which the suit had been instituted by the Manager without obtaining previous sanction of the Board of Directors but where his action had been subsequently ratified by them. It, however, lays down that this ratification cannot be made after the period of limitation had expired. 'Maharaj of Rewah v. Swami Saran', 25 All 635 (vide para 3 above) though it is not a case of a joint stock company also supports the view that a defect like the one noticed in the present case can be cured by subsequent appointment of the person who had instituted the suit as the recognized agent of the Plaintiff. In this connection it is to be borne in mind that, while Order 29, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, contains specific provision for the signing and verification of the pleadings in a suit by or against a corporation, Order 3, rule 1 containing pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
