SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ker) 187

Judges : U.L.BHAT,KRISHNAMOORTHY
Kalpaka Shrimp Exports - Appellant
Versus
Kerala Financial Corpn. - Respondent
Case No : M.F.A. No. 95 of 1989
Decided On : 06/07/1989
Advocates Appeared :
P.K. Balasubramanyan; S.V. Balakrishna Iyer; For Appellants

The competence of the officer who signed and verified the petition under Order XXIX C.P.C. is not limited to a specific designation and can include any officer authorised by the Board.

Headnote:

Principal Officer - State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - The court held that any officer generally or specially authorised by the Board can be regarded as the principal officer for the purpose of signing and verifying the plaint under Order XXIX C.P.C. This interpretation was crucial in establishing the competence of the officer who signed and verified the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The Kerala Financial Corporation filed a petition for the recovery of amounts borrowed by the respondents. The respondents raised objections regarding the competence of the officer who signed and verified the petition, the premature claim, and the responsibility for the failure of the party entrusted with the erection work.

Finding of the Court:

The court overruled the objections raised by the respondents and allowed the petition, stating that the petition was filed by a competent officer and that the claim was not premature. The court also held that the responsibility for the failure of the party entrusted with the erection work did not affect the recovery of the amount by the Kerala Financial Corporation.

Issues: Competence of the officer who signed and verified the petition, premature claim, responsibility for the failure of the party entrusted with the erection work.

Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of the term 'principal officer' under Order XXIX C.P.C. and the finding that any officer authorised by the Board can be regarded as the principal officer were crucial in establishing the competence of the officer who signed and verified the petition.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no ground to interfere with the lower court's decision.

Judgment :-

1. Respondents 1, 3, 8 and 14 in O.P.No.123/1982 of the District Court, Trichur are the appellants herein.

2. First respondent herein, Kerala Financial Corporation, filed the O.P. before the District Judge under S.31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short'the Act') claiming reliefs against the respondents in the petition in regard to the recovery of amounts borrowed by those respondents from the Corporation by sale of properties charged. Respondents 2,3 and 8 before the lower court filed objections contending that the petition has not been signed and verified by a competent officer of the Corporation and is not maintainable, that the entire loan amount has not been disbursed and the claim was premature, that the loan was borrowed to erect a freezing plant the work in connection with which was entrusted to M/s. Peyoli Refrigeration Corporation at the instance of the Kerala Financial Corporation and they did not complete the work in time inspite of demand and, therefore, the Financial Corporation is not entitled to recover the amount from them. The learned judge overruled all these contentions and allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.

3. R.1 of Order XXIX C.P.C. states that in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of corporation by the Secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. The learned judge felt that since the Kerala Financial Corporation has officers superior to the Deputy Legal Manager who has signed and verified the plaint, he is not the principal officer to file the suit. We are unable to agree with this view. The expression "principal officer" has not been defined in the C.P.C. If the word is to mean the most important officer, then not more than one officer in the corporation will be able to sign the petition. S.31of the Act states, interalia, that in cases of default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof, any officer of the Financial Corporation, generally or specially authorised by the Board in this behalf may apply to the District Judge for one or more of the reliefs contemplated therein. Reading R.1 of Order XXIX and S.31 of the Act together and harmoniously it must follow that any officer generally or specially authorised by the Board in that behalf can be regarded as principal officer for the purpose of Order XXIX C.P.C. Even otherwise it is necessary to remember that R.1 of Order XXIX C.P.C. is not exhaustive of the persons or officers who can sign and verify the plaint. There is no dispute before us that the Deputy Legal Manager who actually signed and verified the petition was duly authorised to do so by the Board as per Ext. A5 resolution. We, therefore, find that the petition filed before the District Judge was by a competent officer.

4. Appellants contend that the entire loan amount sanctioned by the Corporation has not been disbursed and, therefore, the claim is premature. The Corporation sanctioned loan of Rs.9,95,000/- to the first appellant herein. Rs.7,23,182.50 was disbursed in three instalments and in that behalf three registered mortgage deeds have been executed in favour of the Corporation charging some immovable properties and moveables such as machinery. There is no dispute before us that regarding the amounts so disbursed, borrower was obliged to repay the same with interest in certain specified instalments. There is no dispute' before us that such instalments had been kept in arrears. It is true that a portion of the loan amount sanctioned has not been disbursed to the borrower. We asked learned counsel for the appellants about the terms on which the balance amount is required to be disbursed in accordance with the conditions of contract between the parties. Learned counsel explained that portions of the loan amount are to be disbursed depending on the stage reached in the erection of the plant for the erection of w


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top