CPC Case Analysis PDF

1
CASE ANALYSIS
SUBMISSION for ICE MODE II

‘Civil Procedure Code & Limitation Act I’
Topic Assigned: RECOGNISED AGENT

Judgement Analyzed: United Bank of India v Naresh Kumar and Ors AIR 1997 SC 3
Submitted by:
Gaganpreet Singh
PRN: 18010224016;
Programme: BBA.LLB.
Div.: A
Semester:VII
Year:4thYear
Batch: 2018-23
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune
Submitted to:
Ms. Megha Nagpal
Assistant Professor

(August2021)
2
INDEX
S.No Content Page No.

1. Declaration 3
2. IRAC of Case Law 4

3
DECLARATION FOR MODE II ‘Case Analysis’

This Submission is based on original case-analysis carried out by the undersigned for the topic:
Recognised Agent and is submitted by the undersigned to Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA,
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune for the course ‘Civil Procedure Code and
Limitation Act I’ as part of Internal Continuous Assessment (ICE) Mode II. The research work
herein has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree or any other purpose
whatsoever. The contents of the submission are original and not plagiarised. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the submission has been duly acknowledged.
I have also taken due care that the contents of my submission are not similar or same as another
learner’s submission for the aforesaid course. I understand that I could be held responsible
and accountable for plagiarism, if any, even if detected later.
GAGANPREET SINGH
Date: August 28, 2021
Name of the Learner: Gaganpreet Singh

PRN: 18010224016
Batch: 2018-23
Programme: BBA.LLB.
Division: A
4
UNITED BANK OF INDIA V. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS1
ISSUE
The“appellant in the question i.e., United Bank of India advanced loan to the respondent i.e.,
Naresh Kumar. The appellant bank filed a suit for recovery along with interest wherein the
court fees was also paid by the appellant bank as well as all the documentary and oral evidences
were led on behalf of the appellant. The courts acknowledged that the loan was advanced to
the respondent and also acknowledged the fact that the claim of the appellant was held to be
justified. The issue regarding whether the suit for recovery of money was properly instituted
or not was also there.
RULES
 Or. 4 R.14 of the Code of Civil Procedure

 Or. 29 R 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
 Or. 41 R 17(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure
 Or. 41 R 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure
ANALYSIS
In“paragraph 8 of the judgement delivered by the Court, the only issue which remained to be
answered was identified i.e., whether the plaint was signed by a competent person or not. In
paragraph 9 the court held that in such cases the public interest should not be allowed to be
defeated due to a technical or procedural error which does not go to the root of the situation. It
was further held that since a company is a juristic entity, any person can be duly authorized by
the company to act on behalf of the company for signing the plaint or the written statement
which can be regarded as sufficient compliance.”The court also stated that a resolution passed
by the Board of Directors or a Power of Attorney executed in favour of an individual can
expressly authorize a person to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. A company being
a juristic entity can duly authorize any person to sign a plaint on behalf of the company. Further,
it has been iterated by the High Court of Kerala in the case of Bank Kottayam Bank Ltd. v.
Ahammed Kannu Rawther2 that Or. 29, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is merely
permissive and does not prohibit any corporation from duly authorizing any agent to sign the
pleadings on behalf of the corporation. The court also held that in cases like the present one a
suit which is filed for the public interest should not be defeated only because of a small
technicality. The court also held that here is sufficient power in the Courts, under the CPC to
1
AIR 1997 SC 3.
2
AIR 1957 Ker 164.
5
make sure that injustice is not done to any party who have a just case and also that the party
should not be defeated for a procedural irregularity which can be cured.
Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its
pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the
pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC, therefore, provides that in a
suit by or against a corporation the secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the
corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the
company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the CPC it would appear
that even in the 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.
CONCLUSION
The“court concluded that as per the circumstances of the case (as mentioned under the head
Issue), it was difficult to presume that the suit was instituted by the agent of the appellant Bank
without the Bank having authorized the same. The court held that this particular issue had been
wrongly decided in the lower appellate court and the agent must have been authorized to sign
the plaint. Or. 3, R. 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Or. 6, R. 14 of the Code of
Civil Procedure allows duly authorized agents to sign any pleading on behalf of the pleading
party.”The “court held that a person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf
of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by
a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases
where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action
of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied.”

CPC Case Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPC Case Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPC Case Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

SUBMISSION for ICE MODE II

Topic Assigned: RECOGNISED AGENT

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

S.No Content Page No.

2. IRAC of Case Law 4

DECLARATION FOR MODE II ‘Case Analysis’

Date: August 28, 2021

Name of the Learner: Gaganpreet Singh

UNITED BANK OF INDIA V. NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS1

 Or. 4 R.14 of the Code of Civil Procedure

You might also like