Advocates:
['ABHIJIT A S DESAI', '', 'DEEPA CHARI', 'J GODINHO']

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.48/2009

M/s Fomento Resorts and

Hotels Ltd., a company

Ltd., a company registered

under

the

Indian

Companies Act, 1956

having registered office at

Vainguinim Beach Goa,

Represented

by

its

Company

Secretary,

Shri Ishwar B. Muchandi.

…......

Petitioner.

Versus

1

Dr. Amilcar Cunha

Souza, aged 58 years,

son of Salvador M.

Cunha Souza, residing

at House no. 783,

Gogol, Margao, Goa.

2

Shri Dilip Modu

Timblo, major in age,

son of Modu Timblo,

having office at 601,

Erasmo

Carvalho

Street, Margao, Goa.

….....

Respondents.

-2-

Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. A. Razak

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

CORAM :- N. A. BRITTO.

DATE :24^th June, 2010.

ORDER

Heard.

2.

This Writ petition is filed by the petitioner which is a

company. Petition has been signed and verified by one Shri I. B.

Muchandi who claims to be its company secretary. The Writ

Petition is directed against the Order dated 30.9.2008 of the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, by which an application

filed by the writ petitioner, as defendant no. 1 in Regular Civil

Suit no. 628/2000, was dismissed. The said application was filed

to set aside a consent decree dated 13.4.2006 in said civil suit,

on the ground that defendant no.1 (petitioner herein) had not

conferred any powers on Ghanashyam Srinivas Pai Raikar to sign

the compromise terms leading to the said consent decree dated

-3-

13.4.2006.

3.

The preliminary objection taken is that the petition is

not maintainable, in the absence of a resolution of the Board of

Directors authorising the company secretary to file the same.

4.

Shri Usgaonkar, learned senior counsel, appearing on

behalf of the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Order

29, Rule 1, of C.P.C. and has submitted that the company's

secretary can sign and verify the pleadings. Order 29 deals with

suits by or against corporations. Rule 1 therefore provides that in

a suit filed by or against corporation, any pleadings 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. Shri Usgaonkar

therefore submits that this writ petition has been filed in

accordance with law. Shri Usgaonkar has placed reliance on the

Union Bank of India Vs Naresh Kumar and others [(1996) 6

-4-

SCC 660] wherein Apex Court referring to the provision of

Order 29, Rule 1, and Order 6, Rule 14, of C.P.C.. has

observed that it would appear that even in the absence of formal

letter or authority or power of attorney having been executed a

person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29, can by virtue of office

which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the

corporation.

5.

The Apex Court in the above decision, has also

observed that in absence of any formal letter of authority or

power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in

Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds,

sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In

addition thereto and dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of Code of Civil

Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise

any person to sign the plaint or written statement on its behalf

and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with

provisions of Order 6 , Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

-5-

A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleading on

behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors

passing a resolution to that effect or by Power of attorney being

executed in favour of any individual. In the absence thereof in

case where pleadings have been signed by one of its officer, a

corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the

pleadings