TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery of Rs. 8,50,952 along with interest of Rs. 3,06,342 was decreed by reversing the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi ('the trial court'). 4. The suit was filed by the respondent through Shri Ashok K. Shukla, who described himself as one of the directors of the company and claimed that he was authorised by Shri Raj K. Shukla, the chief executive officer of the company vide authority letter dated 2-1-2003, to sign, verify and file suit for recovery on behalf of the company. A copy of the authority letter allegedly signed by Shri Raj K. Shukla was also annexed with the plaint. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that Shri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....senior counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and argued that the High Court commit- ted serious error by reversing the finding recorded by the trial court on issue No. 1 totally ignoring that the respondent had not produced any evidence to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was a director of the company and he had been authorised by the company to file the suit. Learned senior counsel extensively referred to the pleadings of the parties including the rejoinder filed on behalf of the company before the trial court, evidence of Shri Ashok K. Shukla and argued that the suit could not have been decreed because no evidence was produced on behalf of the company to prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was authorised to file th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, an objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaint has not been signed, verified and filed by a competent and authorised representative on behalf of the company and that there is neither any valid board resolution nor any valid authorisation on behalf of the company nor a copy of the resolution has been filed along with the suit. It was also pleaded that the person who has instituted the suit on behalf of the company is not shown to be a power of attorney holder nor a copy of such power of attorney has been filed with the plaint and the authorisation letter purported to have been given by the so-called Chief Executive Officer is not a valid authorisat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rify and institute the present suit. The plaintiff has also not filed on record its memorandum/articles to show that Shri Raj Kumar Shukla had been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the company. The present suit, therefore, has been filed merely on the strength of the authority letter exhibit PW1/A ..." 15. The trial court then referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1991] 70 Comp. Cas. 388 and Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. v. Manjula S. Agarwalla [2005] 125 Comp. Cas. 477 (SC), the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 and proceeded to observe: "... As already stated, i....