GUPTA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. FIRM AMRISH PLASTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. The only point involved in this appeal is as to whether Shri Ramawtar Gupta, one of the Directors of the plaintiff Company M/s Gupta Plastics Private Limited, was authorized to institute the present suit in the name and on behalf of plaintiff Company against the defendant in the trial court, or not? The trial court framed Issue No.4A in this regard and decided the same against the plaintiffappellant. The trial court, while deciding other Issues in favour of the plaintiff, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the finding on Issue No.4A.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,05,600/- against the defendant-respondent in the trial court. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written-statement. The trial court framed five issues. Later on, Issue No.4A was also framed. The plaintiff examined P.W.-1 Ramawtar Gupta and produced documentary evidence. The defendant examined D.W.-1 Laxmi Niwas Bangur and DW-2 Damodar Lal Sharma. All the Issues, except Issue No.4A, were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.2, as to whether the plaintiff-company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,05,600/- from the defendant, was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The issue No.3, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled only to receive Rs.30,000/-, was also decided against the defendant. The trial court, while deciding Issue No.4A, held that the plaintiff is a registered Company and Ramawtar Gupta is its one of the Directors but a resolution of Company authorizing him to institute the present suit has not been filed, therefore, the trial court, on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High court in M/s Nibr o Limited v. Nationa l Insurance Company Limited, AIR 1991 Delhi 25, decided the said Issue against the plaintiff and, on the basis of the finding on Issue No.4A, dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1994.

(3.) NO one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice and, as such, there is no assistance available on behalf of the respondent.