and to institute, pursue and depose in all legal proceedings and companyrt cases on behalf of Siddharth Garments Pvt.
Date 2019.03.01 182423 IST Reason The appellant as Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt.
Navneet Gupta, R o. 322, Kohat Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi who has been authorised vide board resolution dated 12.05.2016 to sign, verify and execute all documents, papers, companyplaints, applications, plaint, written statement, Counter claim, affidavits, replies revisions, etc.
25 Lakhs.
It was on 29.11.2016, Navneet Gupta appeared in Court as power of attorney of the Plaintiff to examine himself as PW1.
By the aforesaid Signature Not Verifiedorder, a petition against an order passed by the learned trial companyrt on Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI 23.01.2018 seeking permission to amend the plaint was dismissed.
It is thereafter, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the companynsel had inadvertently made the title of the suit wrongly as the loan was advanced through the Company, therefore, the suit was to be in the name of the Company.
It is also averred that Plaintiff has given Special Power of Attorney to Shri Navneet Gupta and that a companyy of the Power of Attorney is enclosed.
The Special Power of Attorney is neither valid number admissible.
Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
It was at that stage an order was passed by the learned trial companyrt to furnish address of the Plaintiff and why the Plaintiff should be examined through an attorney when the Plaintiff is a resident of Delhi.
25,00,000/ remitted to the defendant through RTGS on 16.06.2013 on HDFC Bank, Delhi.
It is the said order which was number interfered with by the High Court.
Ltd against Mrs. Renu Chaudhary who was given the loan of Rs.
The defendant raised one of the preliminary objections in the written statement that suit has number been filed by the Plaintiff and even the alleged authorised representative has number filed any document showing that he has been authorised by the above named Plaintiff.
Hemant Gupta, J. Leave granted.
The Plaintiff has claimed the said amount advanced as loan of Rs.
The Order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
25,00,000/ along with pendente lite and future interest on or about 28.05.2016.
