Natural justice requires notice before rejecting an appeal for alleged lack of signatory authority.

An appeal cannot be rejected for alleged want of authorisation without first giving the party notice and a fair opportunity to establish the signatory's authority. The High Court held that where material showing authorisation had been produced, dismissal solely for absence of a board resolution or similar proof, without prior notice, breached the principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the parties, with all contentions kept open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was not signed by an authorised signatory, without putting the petitioner to notice or granting an opportunity to explain the authorisation, was sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal was rejected solely for want of proof of authority, such as a board resolution, though material showing authorisation had been produced. Where the authority proposed to rely on such objection, fairness required prior notice and an opportunity to meet it. Denial of that opportunity amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the parties.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for a reasoned decision after due hearing, with all contentions kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal cannot be rejected for alleged want of authorisation without first giving the party notice and a fair opportunity to establish the signatory's authority.

---