Skip to content


Laxmi Bhander Ltd. Vs. Purna Chandra Dutta Banik - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Cal770
AppellantLaxmi Bhander Ltd.
RespondentPurna Chandra Dutta Banik
Cases ReferredDelhi and London Bank v. Oldham
Excerpt:
- .....contain express words authorizing him to sue for debts due to the bank. the present case falls within the principle enunciated in these two decisions. the plaintiff in this case was a registered company and the memorandum of association clearly empowers the secretary to verify plaints. in my judgment the requirements of order 29, rule 1 were satisfied. in the result the rule is made absolute, the order of the learned munsif is set aside, and it is directed that the suit be restored and heard according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Khundkar, J.

1. The petitioners who are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act brought a suit against the opposite party for recovery of a sum of Rs. 42-14-3 alleged to be due on a bond. The plaint in the suit was signed and verified by the Secretary of the Company.

2. By an order dated 13th March 1935, the learned Munsif directed that the plaintiff to file an affidavit testifying to the fitness of the Secretary to verify the plaint. The direction not being complied with the learned Munsif ordered the plaint to be struck off. It is against this order that the present rule is directed.

3. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the case of International Continental Caoutchous Compagnie v. Mehta & Co., 1927 Cal 758, referred to in the judgment, does not support the proposition that when a pleading is signed or verified by a person other than the plaintiff, the authority of that person to sign or verify must in every case be established by affidavit. That case proceeded really upon Rule 12, Chap. 7, Original Side Rules of this Court, and applies only to suits within the Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The relevant provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure are Order 6, Rr. 14 and 15 and Order 29, Rule 1. It was contended that inasmuch as Rr. 121 and 122 of the Articles of Association of the plaintiff company empower the Secretary to do all acts necessary for the conduct of suits and especially mentions verification of pleadings as one of those acts and inasmuch as there is an averment in the plaint to that effect, the case of Sreenath Banerji v. E.I. Ry. Co. (1895) 22 Cal 268 applies and no affidavit was necessary.

5. Reliance was placed on the case of Delhi and London Bank v. Oldham (1894) 21 Cal 60 in which it was held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that where a Manager of a banking Company under a power of attorney which authorized him to sue for debts due to the company executed a power of attorney appointing the accountant of the bank to be its attorney at a certain place, the latter was competent to sign and verify a plaint even though his power did not contain express words authorizing him to sue for debts due to the bank. The present case falls within the principle enunciated in these two decisions. The plaintiff in this case was a registered company and the Memorandum of Association clearly empowers the Secretary to verify plaints. In my judgment the requirements of Order 29, Rule 1 were satisfied. In the result the Rule is made absolute, the order of the learned Munsif is set aside, and it is directed that the suit be restored and heard according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //