The court upheld the trial court's decree for unpaid goods, emphasizing the plaintiff's compliance with procedural requirements and the defendant's failure to substantiate claims against the quality of goods supplied.

JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

The decree for money is under challenge by the defendant in the suit.

2. The claim is towards the value of sodium formate supplied to the defendant through the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, based on the purchase orders issued by the defendant, the plaintiff caused supply of eight consignments of the chemical to the defendant. However, the defendant made payments only towards the first three consignments. The suit is for realisation of the value of the remaining five consignments.

3. The defendant, though admitted the agreement with the plaintiff, denied the claim that any amounts due to the plaintiff.

4. The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim towards the value of goods and granted a decree accordingly. Though the plaintiff had raised yet another claim under the head of travelling expenses incurred for the Managing Director of the defendant with regard to the travel made in connection with the business deal, the said claim was disallowed by the Court. There is no appeal against that by the plaintiff and hence the said claim no longer survives.

5. We have heard Shri.Laxmi Narayanan R., the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant- defendant and Shri.Anil S. Raj, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

6. The points that arise for determination are;

i) Is the suit defective for non-compliance of Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)?

ii) Does the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the value of five consignments, warrant any interference?

7. Shri.Laxmi Narayanan R., the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that, though the plaintiff claims to be a Company, no document relating to the same has been produced even to prove its existence. The plaintiff is not represented by a person competent to depose the facts. There is non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , it argued. It is further urged that the trial court has solely banked upon the alleged evasive denials of the defendant in its written statement. The court ought to have required the plaintiff to produce the relevant documents to prove the alleged supply, rather than finding fault with the absence of specific denial. He would further urge that it may not be correct to find that the written statement does not deny the plaint averments. In the absence of any evidence to prove the transactions, the plaintiff ought to have not have been granted a decree, it is argued.

8. Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus;

“Suits by or against corporations

1. Subscription and verification of pleading.—In suits by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed and verified on behalf of the 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.”

A Company is the legal person. The rule enables any director or principal officer of the corporation, who is able to depose the facts of the case, to sign and verify the pleadings of the corporation. At paragraph 1 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff company is represented by its Director, who is authorised by a resolution and is competent to represent the company. In the affidavit accompanying the plaint, the signatory has deposed that he personally knows the facts of the case. Ext.A1 is the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held on 24.10.2016 authorising the Director to represent the company in legal proceedings. The materials as above is sufficient enough to find that the suit has been instituted in due compliance of the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

9. In South India Corporation (Agencies) v. State Trading Corporation of India [ILR 1969 (1) Ker. 283], it was held that, anyone of the persons mentioned under Order XXIX Rule 1 is competent to sign the plaint on behalf of the