Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Sanghvi Movers Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
M/S. Unicorn Engineers Represented by its Managing Partner Shri. P. Ponram - Respondent
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.390 and 628 of 2017 & C.M.P.Nos.1752 and 1753 of 2017
Decided On : 02-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Sivavarthanan
For the Respondent: Ms. P.T. Asha for M/S. Sarvabhauman Associates
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the authority granted by the Board of Directors to the Executive Director to delegate the power to conduct the case, and the application of Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. in setting aside an exparte order.
Headnote:
Authority - Civil Procedure - Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. - Board of Resolution, authority letter - I.A.Nos.566 and 565 of 2016 - C.R.P.(PD)No.390 of 2017, C.R.P(PD)No.628 of 2017
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of money. The petitioner, as the defendant, failed to file a written statement and was set exparte. The petitioner filed applications to set aside the exparte order and for leave to file and conduct the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application to set aside the exparte order and for leave to file and conduct the suit. The petitioner appealed against the dismissal of both applications.
Issues: The issues involved were the authority of the person representing the petitioner's company and the dismissal of the application to set aside the exparte order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Executive Director had the authority to delegate the power to conduct the case to any official of the company, and thus, the person representing the company was authorized. The court also held that the application to set aside the exparte order was to be allowed.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the applications were remanded for fresh consideration. The court directed the expeditious disposal of the suit within six months.
The Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 05.12.2016 made in I.A.Nos.566 and 565 of 2016 in O.S.No.484 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The issues involved in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.484 of 2014. The respondent filed the suit for a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,51,193/- to the respondent with subsequent interest of Rs.90,143/- for the sum excess collected from 27.07.2013 to 29.04.2014. The petitioner did not file any written statement and he was set exparte. The petitioner filed I.A.No.565 of 2016 under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. to set aside the exparte order dated 30.03.2016 along with the written statement and also filed I.A.No.566 of 2016 for leave to file and conduct the suit.
4. As far as I.A.No.566 of 2016 is concerned, according to the petitioner, Presannan Pulikkal is the authorised person as per the Board of Resolution dated 25.05.2016 and authority letter dated 01.07.2016. As per these two documents, Presannan Pulikkal sought permission to conduct the case.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that Presannan Pulikkal is not an authorised person to represent the petitioner's company. Only the Chief Executive Officer or authorised persons authorised by the Board of Directors alone can represent the company.
6. As far as I.A.No.565 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has stated that due to pressure of work for the year ending and non availability of certain documents, the petitioner could not give instruction to their advocate to prepare and file their written statement.
7. Respondent filed counter affidavit stating that as per the amended C.P.C., the petitioner has to file written statement within 90 days. If he failed to file written statement within 90 days, an application has to be filed to condone the delay by giving reasons for the delay. The petitioner cannot straight away file written statement.
8. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and materials available on record, dismissed the application in I.A.No.566 of 2016 holding that Presannan Pulikkal is not authorised by the Board of Directors to conduct the case and only the Executive Director was authorised to conduct the case and the delegated power cannot be delegated again. In view of the fact that Presannan Pulikkal was not permitted to defend the suit, the learned Judge dismissed I.A.No.565 of 2016, which was filed to set aside the exparte order dated 30.03.2016.
9. Against the order of dismissal in both the applications dated 05.12.2016 made in I.A.Nos.565 and 566 of 2016, the present two civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/defendant.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Board of Resolution dated 25.05.2016 and authority letter dated 01.07.2016 filed in the typed set of papers, submitted that the said documents are filed along with the affidavit in I.A.No.566 of 2016 also.
11. A perusal of Board of Resolution dated 25.05.2016 reveals that it is not only authorised to conduct the case, but also authorised to delegate the authority to any official. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
Type of authority Particulars Name and Designation of the official
Delegation of Authority To delegate the authority to collect all types of statutory forms, papers, cheques, drafts or any other instrument from any person, bank or State/ Central Government or any other statutory/non statutory authority.
To delegate the authority to any Official of the company, to sigh the settlement agreement and all necessary incidental documents for protecting the interest of the company on such terms and conditions as may be finalized by the Managing Director/ Executive Director & CFO.
Subject to the written approval by the M
