JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent-M/s. Kingston Computers (I) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") was allowed and the suit filed by it for recovery of Rs. 8,50,952/- along with interest of Rs. 3,06,342/- was decreed by reversing the judgment of Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court").

2. 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 02.01.2003 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 Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised by the company to file the suit and the authority letter given by Shri Raj K. Shukla was not sufficient to entitle him to do so. The Respondent filed replication but did not plead that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was authorised by the company to file the suit.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit has been signed, verified and filed by a duly authorised person?

2. What is the effect of not joining Sh. Debashish Saraswati in the present suit?

3. Whether any loss has been caused by the Defendant to the Plaintiff?

4. Whether payments have been made by the Defendant in due course and in good faith as alleged in para-3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement if so its effect?

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount?

6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for what period?

7. Relief.

4. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the trial Court decided all the issues except issue No. 1 in favour of the company but dismissed the suit on the ground that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was not authorised to file the same.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the company, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit by relying upon the letter of authority issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla in favour of Shri Ashok K. Shukla. Shri J.L. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgment and argued that the High Court committed 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 the suit. Shri Gupta pointed out that resolutions dated 14.2.2001 and 19.4.2001 passed by the Board of Directors of the company had bearing only on the issue of operating the bank account and not on the issue of filing the suit and the Division Bench of the High Court gravely erred in relying upon those resolutions and the authority letter issued by Shri Raj K. Shukla in favour of Shri Ashok K. Shukla.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and scrutinized the record.

7. In paragraph 1 of the suit filed on behalf of the company, it was pleaded that Shri Ashok K. Shukla is one of the Directors of the company and he has been authorised by Shri Raj K. Shukla, the Chief Executive Officer vide authority letter dated 2.1.2003 t