CHENDUR FORGINGS P LTD Vs. BHANDARI INTERSTATE CARRIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1102 of 1989 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 on the file of the I Asst. Judge (I/C III Asst. Judge), City Civil Court, Madras.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is, as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court miserably failed to appreciate the fact that in respect of a partnership firm it should be specifically pleaded that it is a registered partnership firm under Section 69(2) of the partnership Act and prove such fact coupled with execution of the plaint and verification of the same by a person who is reflected as a partner in the register of Registrar of Firms; it is the responsibility of the carrier to deliver the consignment at the destination and the appellant is in no way responsible to bear the transhipment charges en route and that the trial Court failed to note that the respondent is a common carrier and as a person engaged in public employment for gain should not have called upon the appellant to bear crane charges for lifting the machine from the accident spot. It is his further contention that the person, who signed the plaint and verified the same was not a power agent duly constituted to act for and on behalf of the plaintiff; no affidavit of power was filed; there was no pleading with respect to compliance of Section 69 (2) of the Indian Partnership Act; the plaint is filed on the strength of Ex.A-20, which is a special power of attorney, executed in favour of the authorized signatory and the said power of attorney was executed by only one of the partners; there is no specific delegation of power in the Partnership Deed to a single partner to execute a power of attorney, which implies that Ex.A-20 is not valid in law and as there is no recital regarding delegation of power to a single partner to execute a power of attorney in the deed, it necessarily follows that it is a matter not provided in the deed and that the provisions of the Act will apply; the delegation of power was not provided for in the partnership deed and consequently Exs.A-20 and A-21 are all of no avail to the respondent to get over the bar under Section 69 (2); as the person who signed in the plaint is not reflected in Form-A, Ex.A-19, the suit is hit by Section 69 (2).