GRIND LAYS BANK Vs. MIKADO WOOLLEN MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 1055, 1056 and 1057 of 1981, as the question involved is the same in all the appeals and even the learned lower appellate Court disposed them of by one judgment.

(2.) THE Grindlays Bank, Amritsar, filed the suits for the recovery of the money, which were dismissed by the trial Court on January 16, 1978. Appeals were filed on behalf of the Bank in the Court of the District Judge, Amritsar. At the time of the hearing of the appeals, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Respondents that no competent appeal was presented by a competent person as no resolution taking the decision to file the appeals against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court was filed with the appeals, nor any resolution authorizing the person who gave the power of attorney to the Advocate to present the appeals was filed and, therefore, the presentation of the appeals was unauthorized as in the absence of any resolution to that effect, there was no proper filing of the appeal in Court. Application was moved on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank, requesting that the Appellant be allowed to lead evidence to show that Sh. G.S. Khurana, the then Manager of the Appellant Bank was competent to institute the appeal The lower appellate Court vide order dated June 13, 1980, allowed the said prayer and the witness was examined in the Court. The lower appellate Court found the Appellant Bank had been able to prove on the record the certificate of incorporation of the Bank and also the power of attorney, Exhibit A -l. The contention raised on behalf of the Defendants that the power of attorney. Exhibit A -l, was not duly proved was negatived. However the lower appellate Court took the view that the mere power of attorney did not entitle the Appellant Bank to file the appeals unless there was a resolution passed authorizing somebody to file the appeals on behalf of the Appellant Bank and on that account, it was held that the appeals were not competent and were dismissed accordingly. Dissatisfied with the same, these appeals have been filed on behalf of the Bank.

(3.) THE view taken by the lower appellate Court is not warranted in view of Clause 20 of the Power of attorney, Exhibit A -1, reproduced above. It was held in National Fertilizers' case, 1982 P.L.R. 322 (supra), that it is well settled that appeals and revisions are continuation of a suit. Therefore, if power has been given by a company to a person to institute suits or other legal proceedings, that power will include the power to file appeals and revisions. That will also include the power to take a decision as to whether a suit or appeal or revision should be filed by the company or net. The ratio of the above -said case in fully applicable to the facts of the present cases.