Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaint was duly signed and verified by a competent person on behalf of the bank.
Analysis: A corporation is a juristic entity and must act through officers. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, pleadings may be signed by a principal officer of a corporation, and even where no formal authority is produced, the corporation may expressly or impliedly authorise or later ratify the act of an officer who signed the plaint. A procedural defect of this kind, which does not go to the root of jurisdiction, should not be allowed to defeat a just claim. On the facts, the institution and conduct of the suit, payment of court fee, and prosecution of the case supported the conclusion that the officer was authorised or, at the least, that his act was ratified.
Conclusion: The plaint was validly signed or duly ratified, and the objection to maintainability failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit on the technical objection was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to a decree in accordance with the findings already recorded on the remaining issues.
Ratio Decidendi: A corporate litigant will not be non-suited for want of formal authority where the pleadings were signed by an officer whose authority or act is supported by the record, or where the corporation's conduct amounts to ratification, and the defect is curable.