Corporate authorisation for company petitions is mandatory; a petition filed without proper authority is not maintainable.

A company petition must be filed and verified by the company itself through proper corporate authorisation, or by a duly authorised person under Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. Where the record does not show valid authority for the deponent, and the filing is not supported by a proper board mandate or equivalent authorisation, the defect is substantive rather than technical. An affidavit from another person cannot cure the absence of authority. The petition was therefore not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the company petition was maintainable when it was filed and supported by an affidavit of a company secretary who was not shown to be duly authorised by the company.

Analysis: The petitioning company was required to act through its board of directors, and authority to institute proceedings had to be shown through proper corporate authorization. Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 required the petition to be verified by the petitioner or by a duly authorised person, and the proviso permitted leave only where sufficient reason existed. On the record, the affidavit did not disclose a valid authorization in favour of the deponent, the director shown in the power of attorney was not established to be the managing director, and the company secretary was not shown to have independent authority to institute the petition. In these circumstances, the defect was not a mere technical irregularity and could not be cured by filing an affidavit of some other person.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable for want of filing by a competent duly authorised person and was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the statutory requirement of verification and filing of a company petition by the petitioner or a duly authorised person is mandatory, and a petition filed without such authorization is not maintainable.

---