Validation under section 86 confirms acts of a de facto director, so his signing renders the plaint competent.

Whether the acts of an irregularly appointed director are saved by the validation provision of section 86 was central; the court treated the individual as a de facto director who had acted continually and held that mere raising of doubt or interlocutory findings did not amount to a judicial declaration of invalidity, so the proviso excluding validation did not apply. The legal effect applied was validation of his act in signing the plaint, rendering the plaint competent under the statutory validation doctrine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of S.D. Behal as a director and his signing of the plaint are validated under section 86 of the Indian Companies Act so as to render the suit competent.

Analysis: The Court examined evidence regarding the irregularity of Behal's appointment and whether his subsequent acts were validated by section 86 of the Indian Companies Act. The Court treated Behal as having in fact been appointed and having continually acted as a director, finding no showing that his appointment had been judicially declared invalid prior to the present judgment. The proviso to section 86, which excludes validation where invalidity has been shown, was considered; the Court held that mere raising of a doubt in proceedings does not amount to showing invalidity. The District Judge's earlier remitted inquiry and findings were regarded as interlocutory and not a definitive judicial declaration of invalidity. The Court therefore applied the validating effect of section 86 to Behal's act of signing the plaint.

Conclusion: The objection that Behal was not duly appointed and had no authority to sign the plaint fails; his acts are validated by section 86 of the Indian Companies Act and the plaint is competent.

---