C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 26, 2009 M/s Shri Ram Rice Mills, Dhuri Road, Malerkotla …..Petitioner Vs. The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 9, 2008 passed by Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Malerkotla, dismissing a Misc. application of the petitioner praying for dismissal of the application filed by the respondents for making the award dated August 18, 1998 passed in their favour, as Rule of the Court. In the application filed before the Court, the C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 [2] petitioner- applicant had pleaded that the application for making the award ‘Rule of the Court’, had been filed by Secretary-cum-Manager (Legal) but there is no resolution/ letter of authorization by the Board of directors of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PUNSUP’). It was averred in the application that vide resolution No.105-10 of July 1, 1991, it was only Secretary-cum-Manager, who was to sign the pleadings. The Court below has dismissed the application for the following reasons:- i) As per the record, the objection qua competence of Secretary-cum-Manager was not raised by the respondents during the award proceedings or prior to the filing of the objection application; ii) The application has been filed at a belated stage when the matter was ripe for arguments on the application for making the award dated December 18, 1998, as Rule of the Court. The principle of estopple debars the petitioner from challenging the competence of Secretary-cum-Manager as they have waived the said objection; and iii) The case has not been filed by Secretary-cum- Manager (Legal) on behalf of PUNSUP but it has also been filed by District Manager of PUNSUP whose authority has not been challenged by the C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 [3] petitioner in its application or by any other objection. Sh.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate has contended that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the application of respondents under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for making the award dated December 18, 1998 as Rule of the Court, as there was no authorization with the Secretary-cum- Manager (Legal), who has filed the application. He placed reliance on Food Corporation of India Vs. Sarwan Dass, 2005 (1) PLR 487, in which it was held that for the purpose of an application for reference under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, District Manager was not competent person to sue on behalf of the Corporation, as he had not been ratified by Board of Directors by any documents to act on behalf of PUNSUP. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Food Corporation of India Vs. Sardarni Baldev Kaur and others, AIR 1981 P&H 113, wherein it was held that a District Manager, FCI is not competent to conduct suit on behalf of the Corporation and was not competent to apply under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex-parte decree. As per Order 29 Rule 1 CPC only empower Secretary, Director or any other Principal Officer of the Corporation who can depose to the facts of the case, to sign and verify any pleading made in any suit by or against the Corporation. I have carefully considered the contention of Mr.Pawan Kumar and peruse the application filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which has been submitted by PUNSUP through the Secretary- C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 [4] cum-Manager (Legal) as first applicant and by District Manager, PUNSUP, Sangrur, as second applicant. A copy of item No. 105.10 of 105th meeting of Board of Directors held on July 1, 1991 has been produced on record by counsel for the respondents, which is as follows:- “Decision: The following resolution was passed unanimously:- “Resolved that the Secretary-cum-Manager (Legal) or Addl. Managing Director or Manager Personnel alongwith District Manager concerned, wherever necessary, be and are hereby authorized to sign pleadings written statement, plaints, claims and counter claims etc. for all litigations, at District Court, Tribunals and Arbitrators. The written statements, pleading writs etc., at the High Court level or Supreme Court of India or any Court outside India may be signed either by the Managing Director or Secretary-cum-Manager- (Legal).” The abovesaid decision clearly indicates that Secretary-cum- Manager (Legal) and District Manager have been authorized to sign pleadings, written statement and plaints for all litigations at District Courts, Tribunals and Arbitrators. Said resolution has been taken on record as Mark ‘X’. In view of the abovesaid circumstances, the application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been singed by a C.R. No. 4875 of 2008 [5] properly authorized person. The application has rightly been dismissed. No ground is made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. October 26, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE