1. Arguments concluded.

2. The only question that requires consideration by me in this order iswhether Company Petition No.63(ND)/2008 has been filed by the authorisedrepresentative of the petitioners.

3. In CP No.63(ND)/2008 Boortmalt N V is the petitioner No. l andBoortmalt India (P.) Ltd. is the petitioner No.2. The petition is signed byCol. Suraj K Ahuja. With the petition Col. Suraj K Ahuja had sworn twoaffidavits, one on behalf of the petitioner No. 1, and the other on behalf ofthe petitioner No.2 stating that he is their authorised representative andcompetent to file the company petition. Earlier in the cause title it wasstated that P-l had authorised Col. Suraj K Ahuja by a power of attorney dated23rd September, 2008. As regards P-2 it was stated that Co. Suraj K Ahuja wasauthorised by a Board resolution dated 23rd September, 2008.

4. The petitioners had, with their rejoinder filed two documents, one acertified copy of the extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Board ofdirectors of P-l dated 23rd September, 2008 authorising Col. Suraj K Ahuja tofile the CP against the respondents, and the other a certified copy of theextracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of directors of P-2 dated23rd September, 2008 also authorising Col. Suraj K Ahuja to file the CP againstthe respondents.

5. On 17th May, 2012, additional affidavit dated 10th May, 2012 of Col.Ahuja was filed stating that he was authorised through a Board resolution dated23rd September, 2008 of P-l as well as P-2 and there was an inadvertent errorin the cause title stating that he was authorised by a power of attorney dated23rd September, 2008 by P-l.

6. Under section 10E(4D) of the Companies Act, 1956 (?the Act?), everyBench of the Company Law Board (?CLB?) shall be deemed to be a civil court andevery proceeding before the Bench shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding.Under sub-section (4C) of section 10E every Bench of the CLB shall have powerswhich are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (?Code?)while trying a suit in respect of matters enumerated thereunder.

7. In Sangramsinh P Gaekwad v. Shantidevi P Gaekwad [2005]64 CLA 364 (SC)/ AIR 2005 SC 809; Ramesh B Desai v. BipinVadilal Mehta [2006] 73 CLA 357 (SC)/ AIR 2006 SC 3672; JhalaniTools (India) Ltd. v. Morgan Ventures Ltd. a decision of the HighCourt of Delhi reported in MANU/DE/3572/2009 and Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v.Prime Displays (P.) Ltd. [2003] 55 CLA 136 (Bom.) a decision of the HighCourt of Bombay reported in [2003] 114 Comp Cas 141 it has been held that inthe context of a proceeding before the High Court and of rule 6 of the CompanyCourt Rules the provisions of the Code apply.

8. Order 6, rule 14 of the Code is as under :

?14. Pleading to be signed. -Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any) :

Provided that where a party pleading is,by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, itmay be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sueor defend on his behalf.?

Thus, under this provision every pleadingshall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any). However, under itsproviso the pleading may be signed by any person duly authorised by the partyto sign the same or to sue or defend on its behalf.

9. Order 29, rule 1 of the Code is as under :

?29. Suits by or against Corporations.

1. Subscription and verification ofpleading. - In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may besigned and verified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by anydirector or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose tothe facts of the case.?

Under thisprovision in suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed orverified on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director orother principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the factsof the case.

10. Admittedly Col. Suraj K Ahuja does not fall under any of the classesof persons mentio