Company appeal signed by constituted attorney cannot be rejected for want of separate authorisation if authority is otherwise verifiable.

An appeal filed for a company and signed by its constituted attorney cannot be rejected as incompetent merely because a separate vakalatnama or written authorisation was not produced before the lower appellate authority. Where the memorandum itself shows that the signatory acted as constituted attorney, the defect is at most procedural and curable, and the authority may be verified if doubt exists. The omission does not justify dismissal of the appeal on maintainability alone. The appeal was therefore treated as validly filed, and the matter was restored for consideration of the appeal and stay petition on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed on behalf of a company and signed by its constituted attorney, without a separate vakalatnama or authorisation produced before the lower appellate authority, could be rejected as incompetent.

Analysis: The appeal memorandum itself showed that it was signed by a constituted attorney. On that admitted position, the signatory was competent to act for the company, and the absence of a separate authorisation was at most a curable defect. The lower appellate authority could have sought verification of authority if any doubt remained, but it could not treat the appeal as incompetent and dismiss it on that ground. The defect, if any, was technical and did not justify rejection of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was validly filed through a constituted attorney and the rejection order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The matter was restored for consideration of the appeal and stay petition on merits by the lower appellate authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal signed on behalf of a company by its constituted attorney cannot be rejected as incompetent merely for want of a separate vakalatnama or authorisation when the authority of the signatory is admitted or can be verified, since such an omission is only a curable procedural defect.

---