IN THE COURT OF Name of the presiding officer, LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), DIST. Court district,
Court address
C.S. (COMM) NO. Commercial suit number OF Year of the suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name ….. PLAINITFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name ….. DEFENDANT
N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:
1.That by way of the present Preliminary Objections, the defendant denies all the averments made by the plaintiff. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff only to delay the proceedings and to harass the defendant, with a view to extracting money from the defendant and dragging it into frivolous litigation.
2.In the case of MMTC Ltd Vs. MEDCHL Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. 2002 (1) SCC 234, the Hon'ble High Court held that;
“the complaint was not maintainable as it was signed and presented by a person, who was neither an authorized agent nor a person empowered under the articles of association or by any resolution of the Board to do so. It held that only the Executive Director of MMTC Ltd., had the authority to institute legal proceedings.”
In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand 1998 (1) SCC 687, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"It has been further held that no Magistrate shall insist that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings. It has been held that there may be occasions when different persons can represent the company. It has been held that it is open to the de jure complainant company to seek permission of the court for sending any other person to represent the company in the court. Thus, even presuming that initially there was no authority, still the company can, at any stage, rectify that defect. At a subsequent stage the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. The complaints could thus not have been quashed on this ground."
3.It is submitted that the plaintiff passed a board resolution in favour of Name of authorised Deputy General Manager, Deputy General Manager, authorising him to represent the company before various authorities on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, he issued a letter of authority appointing three authorised representatives, namely Name of first authorised representative, Mr. Name of second authorised representative and Mr. Name of third authorised representative, to represent the plaintiff company jointly and/or severally. The present suit was, however, filed only through Mr. Name of representative who filed the suit. In the absence of proper authorisation and a board resolution in favour of a competent person who can represent the case of the plaintiff company and who is acquainted with its day-to-day affairs, the present suit cannot be pursued.
4.That if the present application is allowed by this Hon'ble Court, the defendant would suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever.
5.That the application under reply is absolutely frivolous and devoid of any merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed, as the plaintiff has miserably failed to make out any ground for the present application.
PARAWISE REPLY:
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the application under reply are a matter of record and hence need no reply.
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the application under reply are a matter of want of knowledge, and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application under reply are wrong and are denied. It is submitted that the present authorised representative is not a duly constituted attorney/authorised representative of the plaintiff company, and he is not competent to institute or depose on behalf of the company. Hence, the present application is liable to be dismissed in the absence of proper authorisation/board resolution passed in favour of a competent person of the company.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the application under reply are wrong and are emphatically denied. It is submitted that Name of current authorised representative is not competent to depose and represent the case on behalf of the plaintiff, inasmuch as he did not possess proper authorisation to institute and pursue the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company. The paragraph under reply is baseless, frivolous, based on false facts and is, therefore, emphatically denied.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the application under reply are wrong, false, frivolous and are denied. It is denied that the application is bona fide and in the interest of justice towards compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court.
The prayer clause of the application under reply is wrong and is denied, and the defendant is not entitled to any relief prayed for therein.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the application under reply with heavy costs, in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, in the interest of justice.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff, in the interest of justice.
Place of filingDEFENDANT
Date of filingTHROUGH
Name of defendant's advocate
Advocate's enrolment number
ADVOCATE
Advocate's office address,
Advocate's city and PIN code
IN THE COURT OF Name of the presiding officer, LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), DIST. Court district,
Court address
C.S. (COMM) NO. Commercial suit number OF Year of the suit
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name ….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendant's name….. DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age, Deponent's permanent address, presently at Place of verification.
1.That the deponent is the defendant in the present case and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and as such is competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying Reply to the application have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, and the contents thereof have been explained to me in vernacular, which I affirm to be true and correct.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification day of Month and year of verification, that the contents of the above affidavit are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT