| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1897 2000 SLD 1897 2000 CLC 866 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1488 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.7686 and 8178 of 1997, decision dated: 30-11-1998
ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J
Hassan Irfan for Plaintiff. Munawar Ghani alongwith Chaman Lal for Defendants
Suit No.1488 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.7686 and 8178 of 1997, decision dated: 30-11-1998
ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J
Hassan Irfan for Plaintiff. Munawar Ghani alongwith Chaman Lal for Defendants
N.V. NUTRICIA--Plaintiff
VS
Messrs NUTRICIA FOODS INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive/ Director/Secretary and another----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------0. VII, R. 11 & O. XXIX, Rr.l, 2---Application for rejection of plaint---Subscription and verification of pleadings---Objections raised on the signing and verification of pleadings---Suit filed by a corporation registered abroad---Conflict of laws---Contention by plaintiff was that suit was properly instituted as the person who had signed and verified the plaint was an authorised person according to law of the country where such corporation was registered and no resolution of the Board of Directors was necessary--- Validity---Issue of the authority of the person could only be proved or disproved after the relevant law was produced before the Court---Defendant would be within his rights to raise issue of the competency at the time of final arguments and burden would be upon the plaintiff to prove the same--Application was disposed of accordingly. PLD 1971 SC 550; PLD 1971 SC 551; 1980 CLC 1932; NLR 1953 UC 184; PLD 1991 Lah. 381; 1994 CLC 2413; Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 8, para. 703; Corpus Juris Secundum, Vo1.19; Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Law; Law and Regulation of International Finance States, Chap. IV, Corporate Capacity, p.27; Carl Zeiss of Heidenhim, Federal Republic of Germany v. Carl Zeiss Stiftung, Jena East Germany PLD 1968 Kar. 276; Modern Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. of'Sarhari, District Sanghar (Sindh) v. Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. 1996 CLC 1064 and 1996 CLC 1067 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ---- Each party should be allowed to agitate his/her own point and the matter should be decided on merits. ORDER 1. This is an application filed by the learned counsel for the defendants Nos. l and 2, who have sought the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint has not been presented by an authorised person as required under the Sindh Chief Courts Rules. He has further gone on to state that the suit has been signed and verified and filed by a competent person as the plaint does not disclose any Resolution of the Board nor has any Board Resolution been filed with the plaint. The 3rd reason that he has used as a ground for rejection…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492