Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 715/25
Bank of Baroda Vs. Chandan Mehta
21.05.2026
Present: Ms. Sudha Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
(through VC).
Mr. M.K. Singh and Mr. Manoj Mittal, Ld.
Counsels for the defendant.
1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been taken up
for disposal.
2. Mr. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, submits the
following in suport of his application:
2.1 The present suit has not been instituted by a duly
authorized person. Mr. Nikhil Raj, Chief Manager of the
plaintiff bank, lacks proper authority to institute and
prosecute the present proceedings on behalf of the bank.
The General/Board Resolution dated 14.11.2017
(Annexure-I) does not constitute a valid, specific or proper
authorization empowering, Mr. Nikhil Raj to file the present
suit.
2.2 The verification clause appended to the plaint is
defective and not in conformity with the mandate of Order
VI Rule 15 CPC. The plaint has not been verified on the
basis of personal knowledge of the deponent, and
therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
3. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff, opposes the application and submits the following:
3.1 The plaintiff bank has placed on record a valid board
Cont..
-- 1 of 5 --
-2-
resolution dated 14.11.2017, whereby all Executives
holding the post of General Managers in Grade VII, Deputy
General Managers in Grade VI, Assistant General
Managers in Grade V and Chief Managers in Grade IV
have been specifically authorized to sign, execute, verify
pleadings and initiate or defend legal proceedings on
behalf of the bank. Since Mr. Nikhil Raj is admittedly
working as Chief Manager in Grade IV, he is fully
competent and duly authorized to institute the present suit.
3.2 The present application is wholly misconceived,
frivolous and has been filed only with a view to delay the
proceedings and evade repayment of the loan amount.
3.3 In support of her submissions, reliance has been
placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar1.
4. I have heard the submissions and perused the record
carefully. The board resolution dated 14.11.2017, placed on
record at page no. 51 of the plaint, clearly authorizes
officers holding positions in Grade VII, Grade VI, Grade V
and Grade IV inter alia to sign and execute documents and
to initiate or defend legal proceedings on behalf of the
plaintiff bank. The said resolution sufficiently empowers the
officers occupying the specific post to act for and on behalf
of the bank in the legal proceedings. Mr. Nikhil Raj, is
working as Chief Manager, which falls within Grade IV.
Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid board resolution, he is
duly authorized and competent to institute the present suit
Cont..
1 1996 SCC OnLine SC 92
-- 2 of 5 --
-3-
and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff bank.
5. So far as the objection regarding defective verification
under Order VI Rule 15 CPC is concerned, the same is
equally untenable. Firstly, an alleged defect in verification is
not a ground falling within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11
CPC for rejection of the plaint. Secondly, a perusal of the
verification clause appearing at page no. 6 of the plaint
shows that the pleadings have been verified on the basis of
the records maintained by the bank and the knowledge
derived therefrom in the ordinary course of business.
Accordingly, the plaint has been verified in accordance with
the requirements of Order VI Rule 15 CPC.
6. In United Bank of India (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed:
“It cannot be disputed that a company like the
appellant can sue and be sued in its own name.
Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil
Procedure 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
Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides
that in a suit by 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 Code of
Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the
absence of any formal letter of authority or
power of attorney having been executed a
Cont..
-- 3 of 5 --
-4-
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 de hors
Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly
authorise any person to sign the plaint or the
written statement on its behalf and this would
be regarded as sufficient compliance with the
provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. 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 it's officers a Corporation can ratify the
said action of it's officer in signing the
pleadings. Such ratification can be express or
implied. The Court can, on the basis of the
evidence on record, and after taking all the
circumstances of the case, specially with
regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the
conclusion that the corporation had ratified the
act of signing of the pleading by it's officer”.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present
application is found to be wholly devoid of merits and
completely frivolous. The application appears to have been
preferred merely to delay the adjudication of the suit and to
avoid liability arising from the loan transaction. Accordingly,
the application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be
deposited in Shahdara Bar Association. The application
Cont..
-- 4 of 5 --
-5-
stands disposed of.
8. Receipt be filed on the NDOH.
9. List the matter for completion of pleadings/A/D of
documents/framing of issues on 03.07.2026.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/21.05.2026
-- 5 of 5 --