1. Plaintiff seeks to introduce a retrospective Board resolution to ratify the authority of a representative who lacked valid authorization at the time of the suit's institution. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1099
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
M Divya And Three Others - Petitioners
Vs.
M/s. Pavani Estates Private Limited - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.3848 Of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2026
Important Points
A foundational defect regarding the lack of authority of a signatory at the time of instituting a suit cannot be cured by subsequent ratification, especially under the strict disclosure and discovery mandates of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Subject
Civil Law - Commercial Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rule 1 - Disclosure and discovery of documents - Mandatory requirement to file all documents in power, possession, control or custody along with the plaint - Leave to rely on additional documents under Rule 1(5) granted only upon establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure - Rigour of strict compliance required in commercial suits to ensure expeditious disposal. (Paras 16-25)
(B) Procedural Irregularity vs. Foundational Defect - Marked distinction between procedural corrections (such as defective verification or signing) and defects that strike at the very foundation of the institution of a suit - Absence of authority of the signatory at the inception of filing the suit is a foundational defect and not a mere procedural irregularity. (Paras 28-32)
(C) Ratified Authority - Ratification presupposes an act capable of ratification - A subsequent resolution cannot retrospectively convert a non-Director into a Director or clothe an incompetent person with authority to validate the institution of a suit. (Paras 30-32, 40)
Facts of the case:
In a suit for recovery of money, a company filed a board resolution describing the signatory as a Director. During cross-examination, it was admitted that the signatory was not a Director at the time of instituting the suit but became one subsequently. The plaintiff then filed applications to bring on record a subsequent board resolution to ratify the earlier resolution and clarify that the signatory was an authorised signatory/accounts manager rather than a Director at the time of filing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the signatory lacked the capacity to institute the suit on behalf of the company at the time of filing. The attempt to use a subsequent resolution to regularise the institution was an attempt to replace the original basis of authority after the completion of evidence. This constituted a foundational defect that could not be cured by treating it as a procedural irregularity.
Issues: Whether an erroneous description of a signatory's status as a 'Director' when they lacked such authority at the time of suit institution is a curable procedural defect, and whether such a defect can be rectified via subsequent ratification under the disclosure regime of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot remove a foundational defect concerning the competence of the person instituting a suit through subsequent ratification. In commercial disputes, the mandatory disclosure obligations under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC must be strictly adhered to, and leave to rely on undisclosed documents requires the establishment of reasonable cause. (Paras 45-46)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned Common Order set aside.
(B) Procedural Irregularity vs. Foundational Defect - Marked distinction between procedural corrections (such as defective verification or signing) and defects that strike at the very foundation of the institution of a suit - Absence of authority of the signatory at the inception of filing the suit is a foundational defect and not a mere procedural irregularity. (Paras 28-32)
(C) Ratified Authority - Ratification presupposes an act capable of ratification - A subsequent resolution cannot retrospectively convert a non-Director into a Director or clothe an incompetent person with authority to validate the institution of a suit. (Paras 30-32, 40)
Facts of the case:
In a suit for recovery of money, a company filed a board resolution describing the signatory as a Director. During cross-examination, it was admitted that the signatory was not a Director at the time of instituting the suit but became one subsequently. The plaintiff then filed applications to bring on record a subsequent board resolution to ratify the earlier resolution and clarify that the signatory was an authorised signatory/accounts manager rather than a Director at the time of filing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the signatory lacked the capacity to institute the suit on behalf of the company at the time of filing. The attempt to use a subsequent resolution to regularise the institution was an attempt to replace the original basis of authority after the completion of evidence. This constituted a foundational defect that could not be cured by treating it as a procedural irregularity.
Issues: Whether an erroneous description of a signatory's status as a 'Director' when they lacked such authority at the time of suit institution is a curable procedural defect, and whether such a defect can be rectified via subsequent ratification under the disclosure regime of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot remove a foundational defect concerning the competence of the person instituting a suit through subsequent ratification. In commercial disputes, the mandatory disclosure obligations under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC must be strictly adhered to, and leave to rely on undisclosed documents requires the establishment of reasonable cause. (Paras 45-46)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned Common Order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Maturi Murthy Maan, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil B Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Maturi Murthy Maan, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Sunil B Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue that late-stage filing of documents to cure foundational defects undermines the Commercial Courts Act, while respondents maintain that procedural irregularities are curable without causing prejudice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The court found that the unauthorized filing of a suit is a foundational defect that cannot be cured by a subsequent retrospective board resolution under commercial procedure rules. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. A foundational defect regarding a signatory's lack of authority at the time of filing a commercial suit cannot be rectified by a subsequent ratification resolution brought after significant delays. (Para 29 , 32 , 40 , 45 , 46 )
5. The High Court set aside the trial court order and dismissed the applications seeking to place the subsequent resolution on record. (Para 47 , 48 )
6. Can a foundational defect regarding the authority to institute a suit be cured by a retrospective board resolution?
No. A foundational defect concerning the absence of authority of a signatory at the time of institution constitutes an inherent failure that cannot be retroactively validated by a subsequent board resolution, especially when the defect was not a result of inadvertence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 40 , 45 , 46 )
7. What is the requirement for filing additional documents under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC in commercial suits?
Parties must disclose all relevant documents at the time of filing the plaint. Any late filing requires the court's leave, which is only granted upon proving a reasonable cause for non-disclosure, subject to the strict timelines and procedural discipline mandated by the Commercial Courts Act. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 25 )
8. Is the distinction between procedural irregularities and foundational defects relevant in commercial litigation?
Yes. While procedural irregularities like defective verification or signing might be curable, a defect striking at the foundation of the suit—such as the total lack of authority to initiate the proceeding—is not a mere irregularity and cannot be cured by way of subsequent amendments or document introduction. (Para 28 , 29 , 32 , 37 , 46 )
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against a Common Order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (‘Commercial Court’) on 06.08.2025 allowing two applications filed by the respondent herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in a Commercial Suit filed for recovery of money.
2. The plaintiff filed the two applications seeking permission for Mr. Archit Reddy to represent the plaintiff Company as its duly authorised signatory and for grant of leave to receive a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff dated 18.06.2025 ratifying an earlier resolution along with the list of documents enclosed with the Plaint. The aforesaid prayers were made in I.A.Nos.467 and 468 of 2025, respectively. The Commercial Court allowed both the applications holding that the defect in the earlier document was a curable one and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4, if the document is allowed. We will discuss the reasons given by the Commercial Court later in this order.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 4 (respondents in the I.As. before the Commercial Court) submits that the parties cannot be permitted to fill up lacunae after deficiencies are exposed during trial. Counsel submits that Mr. Archit Reddy was fully aware that he was not a Director of the plaintiff Company in 2016 at the time of institution of the Suit and hence, this is not a defect which was subsequently discovered. It was further contended that despite a prior admission by Mr. Archit Reddy that he only became a Director in 2017 following the institution of suit, the defect only surfaced and efforts to fill up such lacunae were only made when an objection was made by the petitioners/defendants at the stage of final reply arguments.
4. Senior Counsel submits that the Commercial Court erred in concluding that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners/defendants if the applications were allowed. Counsel submits that the dispute between the parties is a ‘commercial dispute’ as defined under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’) and would hence be governed by the strict timelines prescribed under the 2015 Act and that the objective of expeditious disposal of Commercial Suits under the 2015 Act would be defeated if additional documents are permitted to be filed at the trial stage without reasonable cause. Counsel places emphasis on the fact that the Board Resolution dated 18.06.2025, which the plaintiff sought to bring on record, was not a mere ratification but an attempt to replace the original basis of authority after the completion of evidence.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff (petitioner in the I.As. before the Commercial Court) submits that the Commercial Court was justified in permitting the ratification of a curable procedural defect particularly when no prejudice was caused to the defendants. Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners’ emphasis on the description of the deponent as a ‘Director’ or ‘Authorised Signatory’ is hyper-technical since the Plaint was signed under the seal of the plaintiff Company and the institution of the Suit was not disputed on merits. It is submitted that the subsequent Board Resolution merely ratified the authority of the deponent and did not alter either the identity, capacity, or competence of the deponent. According to Senior Counsel, the admission of Mr.Archit Reddy with regard to becoming a Director of the plaintiff company after the institution of Suit neither renders the Suit invalid nor affects its maintainability for the reason that the authority to institute the Suit emanates from the Board of Directors of the plaintiff Company and the subsequent Board Resolution merely ratified/clarified such authority. According to counsel, the Commercial Court correctly allowed the applications since the subsequent B
