Curable defect in authorisation should not defeat proceedings; opportunity to prove authority must usually be given before dismissal.

A procedural omission in proving corporate authorisation was treated as curable, so complaints and appeals should not be rejected solely on that ground when the underlying claim remains in dispute. The Court emphasised that a party should ordinarily be given an opportunity to place and prove the authorisation on record before proceedings are terminated, especially where the matter concerns public money. The rejection for want of authorisation was therefore not sustained, and the matters were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh trial after permitting proof of authorisation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints and appeals could be rejected solely for want of proved authorisation, and whether the appellant should be given an opportunity to place and prove the authorisation on record.

Analysis: The authorisation from the Board of Directors had not been produced before the courts below, but there was an assertion that the general power of attorney had been filed in a connected matter and that the delegation of powers authorised institution of legal proceedings. The defect was treated as curable. The Court held that where the challenge is confined to a procedural omission, an opportunity should ordinarily be granted to prove the authorisation rather than terminating the proceedings, particularly when the underlying claim remained disputed and public money was involved.

Conclusion: The rejection on the ground of lack of authorisation was not sustained. The matters were remitted to the Trial Court for fresh trial after permitting the appellant to produce and prove the authorisation.

Ratio Decidendi: Curable procedural defects should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights, and a party should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to prove authorisation before proceedings are dismissed on that ground.

---