AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—Heard.
Applicant''s writ petition came to be dismissed on 24/06/2010 with the following observations:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the company''s secretary of the petitioner. No. resolution of the Board of Directors has been produced till date inspite of the fact that objection whether company''s secretary can file this writ petition was taken earlier. The provision of Order 29 Rule 1 is only an enabling provision which enables pleadings to be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by secretary or any director or any principal officer. The proceedings in which pleadings are to be verified could be filed only in case they are authorised by Board of Directors of the company or otherwise authorised by Article of Association of the company and not otherwise. The law is clear on that point from various authorities referred to herein above including the one cited on behalf of the petitioner. No submission is made before this Court to get the filing of the petition duly ratified by the Board of Directors. Therefore in the absence of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the petitioner company in favour of the company secretary to file this petition or to sign or verify it, this petition cannot be entertained and therefore is hereby dismissed.
This application has been filed for review of the said order. To show the extent of powers of review of this Court reliance is placed on the Board of Control for Cricket, India and Another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others, , wherein it is, inter alia, observed by the Apex Court that what would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the words "sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an advocate and that an application of review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit".
Learned Senior Counsel submits that there is a mistake in interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others, , which was relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, at the time of the order dated 24/06/2010 in that, as required by para 11 of the same, the Court did not direct the petitioner as required under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC to file the resolution.
Reliance is also place on Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another, and it has been submitted that in case there was a defect relatable to procedure, opportunity ought to have been given for correction of the same.
Shri Godinho, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance on the case of The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, and submitted that the review jurisdiction is available to correct a "mistake or error apparent" which by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require the detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. An erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
In my view, a wrong interpretation of a judgment of Apex Court is a matter of view and as such not a matter for review for correction in review jurisdiction. Production of resolution of the Board of Directors was not a requirement of the Court to pronounce the judgment as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b), CPC but was a requirement of the petitioner to have a validly constituted petition, before the Court. As already stated, the objection was taken on 15/06/2010. The petitioner had sufficient time to make good the objection or seek further time in case he desired further time but the petitioner did nothing of that sort and on the contrary the petitioner persisted as if everything was right with the petition and invited the order dated 24/06/2010.
In the circumstances, therefore, I find that there is no case made out for review of the said judgment and, consequently, the application for review is hereby dismissed.