HORIZON EXHIBITIONS AND EVENTS PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. ALOK NAGPAL v. RMB EVENT MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,
Dismissal of Suit Based on Procedural Irregularity of Missing Authorization Resolution Overturned; Defect Curable, Substantive Justice Prevails.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:55953
Decision Date: 16-12-2025
List of Laws
Civil Procedure; Contract Law; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Indian Contract Act, 1872
- Facts: Horizon Exhibitions and Events Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) entered into an agreement with RMB Event Management Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) to organize an event. The Appellant paid Rs. 20 lakhs to the Respondent as advance. The event was cancelled, and the Appellant sought a refund. The Respondent did not refund the amount, leading the Appellant to file a suit for recovery with interest. The suit was later transferred to the City Civil Court due to an increase in pecuniary jurisdiction.
- Procedural Posture: The City Civil Court dismissed the suit because the Trial Court found no document authorizing Mr. Nagpal, the director of the Appellant company, to file the suit. The Appellant then filed a First Appeal in the High Court challenging the dismissal. The Respondent did not appear despite substituted service. A cross-objection was also filed but dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Issue: Was the Trial Court justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that the resolution authorizing Mr. Nagpal to file the suit was not on record, especially when other issues were decided in favor of the Appellant and Mr. Nagpal's directorship was not disputed?
- Holding: No, the Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit. The High Court allowed the appeal and reversed the Trial Court's finding on the issue of authorization.
- Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that the absence of the resolution was a procedural irregularity that could have been cured. The Respondent never raised the issue of authorization in the written statement but only during cross-examination. Mr. Nagpal stated in his cross-examination that a resolution existed. The Respondent did not request its production. The Court deemed that the Respondent was satisfied with the answer. The Court also noted that the cause title and verification clause stated Mr. Nagpal was a director, and the Assistant Registrar verified the plaint was properly signed. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. that a suit should not be dismissed on procedural grounds if substantive justice is at stake. The High Court also cited other decisions supporting the view that defects in authorization can be cured during the trial or appellate stage.
🔒 For Members Only