IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR; LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT); DIST. CENTRAL,

TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.

C.S. (COMM) NO. ___ NO.  2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

___________________________________.        …..PLAINTIFF

                        VERSUS

______________________________         …. DEFENDANT

                                                N.D.O.H.: __________

REPLY ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF AR.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1.          That by way of the present Preliminary Objections, the defendant denies all the averments of the plaintiff. Hence, the present application filed by the plaintiff only to delay the proceedings and harass the defendant in order to extort the money from the defendant and dragged into the 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 was passed the board of resolution in favour of _______________, Deputy General Manager and authorized him to representing the company before various authorities on behalf of the plaintiff and thereafter, he issued letter of authority and appoints three ARs namely __________, Mr. _________ and Mr. ___________to represent the plaintiff company jointly and/or severally. Hence, the present suit filed only through Mr. __________. In the absence of the proper authorization and board of resolution in favour of the competent person who represent the case of the plaintiff company as well as know the day to day affairs of the company cannot deposit and pursued the present case.

4.          That if the present application is allowed by this Hon’ble Court there would be an irreparable loss to the defendant and the same cannot be compensated at any cost.

5.          That the application under reply is absolutely frivolous and is 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 para 1 of the reply are matter of records, as such needs no reply.

2.          That the contents of Para 2 of the reply are want of knowledge and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same.

3.          That the contents of the para 3 of the reply are wrong and denied. It is submitted that present AR is not solely constituted attorney / authorized representative of the plaintiff company and he is not competent to constitute and depose on behalf of the company, hence the present application is dismissed in the absence of proper authorization / board of resolution passed in favour of the competent person of the company.

4.          That the contents of the para 4 of the reply are wrong, and the same are denied emphatically. It is submitted that ____________ is not competent to depose and represent the case present on behalf of the complaint, however he was not proper authorization to institute and depose the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company. The para under reply is baseless, frivolous, based on false facts and is thus, denied emphatically.

5.          That the contents of the para 5 under reply are wrong, false, frivolous and denied. It is denied that the application is bonafide and in the interest of justice towards the compliance of the awards of this Hon’ble Court.

Prayer clause of the application under reply is wrong and denied and the defendant is not entitled for any relief prayed for.

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 to do justice.

DELHI                                                              DEFENDANT

DATED:                           THROUGH

___________________       

                                        _____________________                      

ADVOCATE

______________________,

New Delhi-110015

IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR; LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT); DIST. CENTRAL,

TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.

C.S. (COMM) NO. __ NO.  2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

_______________________________       …..PLAINTIFF

                        VERSUS

____________________________    …. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of _________, aged about ________________. Gonda-271303, presently at New Delhi.

1.       That the deponent is Defendant in the present case and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case as such competent to swear this affidavit.

2.       That the contents of accompanying Reply to the application have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions, the contents of the same have been explained to me in vernacular which I affirm to be true and correct.                                  

                                                                                        DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:-

        Verified at New Delhi on this ___ day of June, 2022 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 there from.

                                                                                DEPONENT