Procedural irregularities in suit authorization are curable defects that should not defeat substantial justice.

The appellant (plaintiff), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, filed a suit for the recovery of ₹54,52,865/- for sponge iron supplied to the respondents between 2013 and 2014

The suit was filed through Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, a Senior Manager, via a notarized Special Power of Attorney (PoA)

While the trial court found that the appellant successfully proved the outstanding debt based on ledger statements and balance confirmations, it dismissed the suit on a technicality

The dismissal was grounded on the appellant's failure to produce a specific Board Resolution authorizing the signatory, despite the defendant not raising this specific objection in their written statement and the court not framing an issue on authorization

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of proper authorization in the absence of a framed issue or specific challenge by the defendants

2. Whether a procedural defect regarding the authorization of a signatory in a company suit can be cured at the appellate stage to prevent a failure of justice

The court primarily applied Order 6 Rule 14 and Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which govern the signing and verification of pleadings by corporations

It relied on the precedent United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and Ors. (1996), which established that substantive rights should not be defeated by procedural irregularities and that a company can ratify an officer’s act of signing pleadings expressly or impliedly

The court also considered Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006) regarding the curability of technical defects at the appellate stage

The High Court observed that the trial court adopted a "hyper-technical approach" by dismissing a meritorious claim for recovery solely on the lack of a formal Board Resolution

The court noted that because the defendants did not specifically challenge the signatory’s authority in their pleadings and the trial court failed to frame a relevant issue, the plaintiff was never given a fair opportunity to prove authorization

Applying the principle from United Bank of India, the court reasoned that public interest and justice should not be defeated by procedural defects that do not go to the root of the matter, especially when the debt itself was proved

The court found that since the right of the plaintiff was defeated without due process on this narrow point, the matter required a remand rather than a final dismissal

The court held that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice

The matter was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of permitting both parties to lead evidence on the specific issue of whether the signatory was duly authorized by the company

The trial court was directed to decide the suit within six months