In Re: Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation,Ltd.

Buckland, J.—On an application made on behalf of Clyne Gordon Stewart u/s 38, Companies Act, for the rectification of the register of the Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Limited, Mr. Harcourt, who says that he is a director of the company, has claimed the right of audience on behalf of the company by virtue of a power-of-attorney executed in his favour by two persons, who, as directors of the company, have sealed it with the common seal of the company. The power-of-attorney nominates and constitutes F.L.Harcourt, a director of the company, to appear for and on behalf of the company, to conduct and represent the company in the proceedings in an application made by C.G.Stewart in the High Court and for the proper prosecution of the said proceedings to do all such acts and deeds as he may deem necessary and the company hereby agrees to ratify all his acts and deeds as made for and on behalf of the company.

It has been objected on behalf of the applicant that this gentelman has no right of audience. Mr. Harcourt has informed me, though he has not produced the Court Minutes or any judgment by my learned brother, that Panekridge, J., in a suit against the Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation, Limited, allowed him to plead, basing his decision upon Order 3, Rule 1, Civil P. C. That order and rule provide that "any appearance, application or act in or to any Court may .... be made or done by the party in person or by his recognized agent.

Rule 2 says that

the recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are:

(a) persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties.

To plead is not to make or do an appearance, or an application or an act and is not in my judgment within the order and rules cited. I am glad to find that in this matter I am supported by so high an authority as the late Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., who held that a recognised agent as such has no right of audience. The matter on which he had to consider the question was Hurchand Ray Gobourdhan Das v. B.N.Ry. Co. AIE 1916 Cal 181. In the Small Cause Court, Sealdah, the plaintiff was represented by his authorized agent. The Judge of the Small Cause Court held that though a recognised agent may appear, act and apply on behalf of a plaintiff or defendant "the law does not give him any power to plead on behalf of his principal." The learned Chief Justice and Chatterjee, J., held that a recognized agent as such has no right of audience. I hold that Mr. Harcourt has no right of audience and I cannot hear him on this application. This does not prevent his filing an affidavit which he desires to do under the power-of-attorney produced by him. The power-of-attorney and the affidavit may therefore both be filed.