Procedural technicalities regarding representation and minor notice defects should not override the requirement for a substantive trial when there is prima facie evidence of a commercial claim. Courts must ensure the production of best available evidence rather than dismissing suits on narrow evidentiary exclusions.

Judgment :

Sathish Ninan, J.

This appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for money. The suit was dismissed by the trial court.

2. The plaintiff is a company registered in Netherlands. It is engaged in the business of trading in seafood. Defendants 1 and 2 are companies engaged in the processing and export of seafood. The first defendant is the major shareholder of the second defendant Company. The third defendant is a statutory body which regulates marine export activities in India, and is a formal party. Defendants 1 and 2 are hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”.

3. It is the plaintiff’s case that the plaintiff acted as a Commission Agent in respect of four purchase contracts viz. Exts.A2, A32, A45 and A76 between the plaintiff and the defendants, for supply of frozen tuna to “CONSERVAS ISABEL DE GALICIA, S.L.”, a Company in Spain, the defendants being the sellers. As per the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants the plaintiff was entitled for 5% commission on the sale price. The commission was payable in lieu of the plaintiff having secured business for the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that, though the purchase contracts were executed by the defendants, the commission payable to the plaintiff was not. The suit is laid for realisation of the same.

4. The defendants filed a joint written statement. They denied of having any agreement with the plaintiff and also the plaintiff's involvement in its business transactions with the company at Spain. The genuineness of the purchase orders was denied.

5. The trial court held that the signatory to the plaint failed to prove his competency to represent the plaintiff. It was also held that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC). On the merits, it was held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any agreement with the defendants. Accordingly the suit was dismissed.

6. We have heard Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 and Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, the learned counsel for the third respondent.

7. The points that arise for determination in this appeal are :-

(i) Is the signatory to the plaint is competent to represent the plaintiff ?

(ii) Is the suit bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC ?

(iii) Has the plaintiff established an agreement with the defendants entitling him for 5% commission ?

(iv) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any interference ?

8. The plaintiff company is represented by its Managing Director. The plaint is signed by him under the seal of the Company. Ext.A1 is the English translation of the extract of trade register of the Chamber of Commerce, Netherlands. The same evidences that the signatory to the plaint is the sole shareholder and Director of the plaintiff Company. The document is attested at the Indian Embassy at Hague. We do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the document. Ext.A24 is an invoice which is admittedly issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Company. The defendants do not have a case that the transaction with the plaintiff Company was through someone else other than the present signatory of the plaintiff. We find that there is sufficient material to find that the signatory to the plaint is competent to represent the plaintiff Company. The finding of the trial court to the contrary is liable to be set aside and we do so. Point (i) is answered accordingly.

9. The third defendant is a statutory authority. Section 80 CPC mandates issuance of a notice preceding the suit only against th