SAGAR SURI ESTATE And FINANCE LTD. vs ANJU JAIN

THIS appeal has been filed by M/s. Sagar Suri Estate & Finance Ltd., C/o Sagar Apartment, 6-Tilak Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter called the Company).

AT the outset, a preliminary legal objection has been taken by the Counsel for the respondent that the Company is a Corporate Body and Corporate Body can act only through valid resolution. No valid resolution passed by the Company authorising any person to file the appeal was filed at the time of presentation of the appeal or even at a later stage. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He has cited 1981 PLJ 79, Uddat Bhagat Ram Nazool Co-op. Soc. v. Leekal; 1988 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 518, Punjab Wakf Board v. Kishan Chand; 1979 Punjab Law Reporter 527, Garib Chand v. Municipal Committee, Budhlada; and AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana High Court, Food Corporation of India v. Sardarni Baldev Kaur, to substantiate his argument that the appeal be dismissed in the absence of a resolution passed by the Company authorising someone for filing the appeal before the Commission. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has been filed by the Company through its Attorney. Learned Counsel further concedes that even if no resolution has been passed by the Company authorising any person to file the appeal, the appeal cannot be thrown out on this technical objection only. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection.

It has been admitted before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Company is registered under the Companies Act and it is a Corporate Body. It has also not been denied by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us that the appeal could be filed only after a resolution was passed by the appellant authorising some person to file the appeal before the Commission.

THE filing of an appeal against the order of the District Forum is governed by Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act), which is reproduced as under : "Appeal.-Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period."

It has been provided under Section 15 of the Act that only a person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission. It means that none else except the person aggrieved by the order made by the District Forum, can prefer an appeal against such an order to the State Commission. In the case in hand, it is only the Company, which is aggrieved against the order of the District Forum and the right is conferred only on the Company to prefer an appeal against the order of the District Forum and none-else. We have read the heading of the appeal wherein it is stated as under : "M/s. Sagar Suri Estate & Finance Ltd., C/o Sagar Apartment, 6-Tilak Marg, New Delhi through its Attorney."

THOUGH it is simply written through its attorney, but it is neither mentioned in the heading nor in the grounds of appeal as to who was the attorney authorised by the Company to file the appeal. If there was any attorney; as to whether he was authorised by the Company to file the appeal on its behalf. We do not find any resolution passed by the Company authorising anyone to file the appeal before the Commission. No such resolution authorising any person to file the appeal before the Commission has been produced before us even today. We only find mention of some name K.K. Nayyar on page 5 of the grounds of appeal and on the Power of Attorney filed by Sh. S.R. Bansal, Advocate, which does not in any way indicate that the person with initials K.K. Nayyar was ever authorised by the Company to file the appeal before this Commission. The objection taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent is not merely a technicality, it goes to the roots of the case. When there is no valid resolution or authorization on behalf of the Company authorising any person to file the appeal, then this appeal cannot be considered to have been filed by the Company. In these circumstances, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.