Originally posted by : Neha Jain
	NICE ONE AGAIN FROM YOUR BAG....

Relieved that no mistakes this time around..

very useful information sir... 

thanks for sharing with us...

keep sharing.

Many thanks sir 

BOOKMARKED !!!

In the end the following conclusions can be drawn from the above

1. As per order 6 Rule 14 of CPC, pleadings can be signed by a Director, Secretary and principal officer in the case of a company even if no resolution is passed by the company.

2. A conjoint reading of the order 6  Rule 14 and Order 29 Rule 1 reveals that suits by or  against  a Corporation can be filed by a Director or Secretary or  Principal officer .

3. If  the articles of association restricts filing of suits only by Managing Director or Secretary, then the  board of Directors can not authorize any other person as it amounts restricts on the General powers of the Board. In other words, in the absence such restriction, board  u/s 291 (Genereal powers ) can authorize  any officer other than Director  or secretary to file suits or defend legal proceedings

4. Since Director and Secretary are defined as officers under Section 2(30 ) of the Companies Act,,  no power of attorney or board resolution is required. However if it is any person other than director/secretary, he has to be authorized by a resolution of the board or by a Power of attorney under valid resolution of the Board of directors, provided the Articles do not contain any restriction.

5. Even if the officer signing the plaint /suit is not authorized at the time of institution of Suit, the defect can be removed by ratification of the Board by its subsequent resolution. In suits, this objection as to authority has to be raised.

6. On technical grounds writs/suits  should not be dismissed denying justice. Supreme court has held in United bank of India Vs Sh Naresh Kumar & Ors that there is sufficient power in the Courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.  Hence court should give an opportunity to cure the defect .i,e  ratification.

Sorry for late reply.........

Sanjay ji...

Very nice post... You have collected everything on the topic, post it at a single place and made the post very informative and useful..

Thank u Sirji for sharing the aricle

BOOKMARKED...!!!! 

Thanks for Sharing Sir.....

"Relieved..." Thank God. I've got time to read it slowly, Dear Sanjay Ji.

Thank you all for your comments.

@ Sourav Da....Relieved....Could understand this reply (Joke ) of yours...Else, everything seems to go over my head...

To

 CMA. CS. Sanjay Gupta
 

Dear Sir,

Please refer your article “Officer in Default – An Overview”, nine months ago, posted on CACLUBINDIA.

It was really inspiring article, nine months ago., as I was reading.

It is absolutely inspiring article, even today, when I read.

The Appreciations are genuine:

-----------------

I am inspired by your authority on this section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956.  

It is really  comCS Ankur Srivastava Company Secretary & Compliance Officer 
 I appreciate the completeness of the Article.

Hereby, I tried to put my sincere effort in understading the very section 5, ‘Meaning of  ‘Officer who is in default’, the Companies Act, 1956.

When you find time, please watch this VIDEO.  

 I request you to guide how to improve myself in providing such information through VIDEOs.

The Companies Act,1956. Sec 5 Meaning of "officer who is in default ...
► 56:12► 56:12	www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJW...Share NEW1 hour ago - 56 min Sec 5 Meaning of "officer who is in default". Venkateswara Rao Sapare. Subscribe Subscribed Unsubscribe ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJW-FN81AzE

Thanking you, Sir.

Venkateswara Rao Sapare

28.10.2012