UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus SH. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 18-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
SH. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 6 Rule 14. Order 29 Rule 1 and 
Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b). 
C 
Pleadings-Suit by companr-f'laint signed and velified by person duly 
auth01ised by company-However, suit was dismissed on ground that it was 
not duly signed and velified by a competent person-Held : Company could 
expressly auth01ise one of its officers to sign plaint or it could ratify, expressly 
or impliedly, act of signing-Court could render finding about ratification on 
basis of evidence on record and circumstances specially with regard to 
D conduct of trial-Even if [lial co wt found plaint was not duly signed and 
velified by competent person, appellate cowt under 0.41 R. 27(l)(b) could 
direct power of attomey to be produced or order competent person of com-
pany to be examined as witness to prove ratificatiort-ln the circumstances of 
the case, plaint was duly signed and velified by a competent person. 
E 
F 
Practice and Procedure : 
PleadingJ.~Substantive lights should not be allowed to be defeated on 
account of procedural in-egul01ity or mere technicality which is curable-Code 
of Civil Procedure, 1908, 06 R. 14. 
The appellant-Bank instituted a suit for recovery of the loan ad-
vanced to respondent No. 1 together with interest thereon. One R had 
signed and filed the plaint on behalf of the appellant. The suit had been 
filed in the name of the appellant'Company; full amount of court fee had 
been paid by the appellant bank; documentary as well as oral evidence had 
G been led on behalf of the appellant and the trial of the suit had continued 
for about two years. The co_urts below came to a conclusion that money 
had been taken by respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 and 
husband of respondent No. 3 had stood as gurantors and that claim of the 
appellant was justified. However, the suit was dismissed by the courts 
H below on the ground that the plaint was not duly signed and verified by a 
478 
UNIIBD BANK OF INDIA v. NARF.SH KR. 
479 
competent person. The question for consideration before this Court was A 
whether the plaint was duly signed and verified by a competent person. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. A company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its 
own name. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it would appear that even in the absence of 
any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a 
person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which 
he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Corporation. In 
addition thereto an de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, C 
as a company is Juristic entity, it can duly authories any person to sign 
the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded 
as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the 
pleadings on behalf of the company. In absence thereof and in cases where 
pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a Corporation can, ratify D 
the said action of its officer in signing the Pleadings. Such ratificatlq~ can 
be express or implied. [483-D-F] 
2.1. The courts below could have held that R must have been em-
powered to sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. In the alternative it E 
would have been legitimate to hold that the manner in which the suit was 
conducted showed that the appellant- bank must have ratified the action 
of R in singing the plaint. If, for any reason whatsoever, the courts below 
were still unable to come to this conclusion, then either of the appellant 
courts ought to have exercised their jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 
27 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have directed a proper F 
power of attorney to be produced or they could have ordered R or any other 
competent person to be examined as a witness in order to prove ratification 
or the authority of R to sign the plaint. Such a power should be exercised 
by a court in order to ensure that injustice is not done by rejection of a 
genuine claim. [483-H, 484-A-B] 
G 
2.2. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended 
on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted 
to be defeated on a mere technicality. Pro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.