ALOK SHARMA, J. - (1.) The matter comes up on two applications one being no.22779/2016 and the other being no.7124/2017. The background of the aforesaid two applications is as under:- A winding up petition was filed on 30.05.2014 at the instance of the petitioner Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh through his power of attorney one Dr. Rashmi Dickinson. A copy of the notarised power of attorney was annexed to the petition. The respondent-company in reply to the winding up petition objected to the authority of the holder Dr. Rashmi Dickinson to lay the winding up petition on behalf of the petitioner Rajendra Pratap Singh on the ground that the power of attorney annexed to the petition did not so authorize her. On that objection, application no.22779/2016 was filed by the petitioner stating that the power of attorney dated 16.09.2003 (notarized 18.09.2003) which was annexed to the winding up petition was because of an error of filing and in fact Dr. Rashmi Dickinson under another power of attorney dated 28.11.2011 was authorized by the petitioner Rajendra Pratap Singh to act on his behalf against the respondent- company by way of all action including legal actions to recover the debt. It has been submitted that no question about the said power of attorney dated 28.11.2011 being genuine and authentic can arise inasmuch as it was used at the instance of the holder Dr. Rashmi Dickinson in S.B. Company Application no.15/2013.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that yet the issue of the authorization to Dr. Rashmi Dickinson who filed the winding up petition on behalf of the donor Rajendra Pratap Singh may have remained as the said power of attorney dated 28.11.2011 only authorized the holder Dr. Rashmi Dickinson to take legal actions to recover the debt owed to the petitioner by the respondent- company. To over come this the second application (no.7124/2017) was filed to bring on record another power of attorney dated 31.12.2016 executed by the petitioner in favour of Dr. Rashmi Dickinson claryifying ratifying the earlier power of attorney dated 28.11.2011 and also specifiically stating that she was authorized to file a winding up petition against the respondent-company at the time it was filed. Per contra, Mr. K.J. Mehta appearing for the respondent- company submitted that the winding up petition as initially filed on the basis of power of attorney dated 16.09.2003 did not authorize its holder Dr. Rashmi Dickinson to file such a petition. It was submitted that in fact the power of attorney dated 16.09.2003 prohibited the filing of the winding up petition by the holder. For this reason the winding up petition is liable to be dismissed. Post filing event particularly seeking to bring the power of attorney dated 31.12.2016 on record of the petition is of no event. So too the subsequent ratifying power of attorney dated 31.12.2016. Hence the two applications under consideration be dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Sandeep Taneja has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs. Sunil [2006 (5) SCC 96] particularly Para 8 and 9 thereof. It has been submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held, that an act which was earlier improperly or unauthorizedly performed, when ratified by a subsequent proper authorization of performance has the effect of wiping out the initial irregularity as it relates back to the date of the initial performance. Mr. Sandeep Taneja also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. RPG Transmission Ltd. [2003 (114) SCC 764] wherein it was held the proper course which should be adopted by the Court in cases where the power of attorney in favour of the signatory to the plaint/petition is found to be inadequate, is to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the defect or cure it by any other means including ratification of the action already taken. Heard. Considered. From the facts on record the power of attorney dated 28.11.2011 executed by the petitioner Rajendra Pratap Singh in favour of Dr. Rashmi Dickinson authorized her to take all actions including legal actions to recover the debt from the respondent- company i.e. RMD Publishers Private Limited and and M/s Channel 99 Media Private Limited. The words all actions in the said power of attorney was without limitation yet specifically did not authorize the filing of a winding up petition against the respondent- company. This power of attorney was earlier admittedly utilized by the holder Dr. Rashmi Dickinson acting on behalf of Rajendra Pratap Singh in S.B. Company Application No.15/2013. This firmly authenticates its genuineness.;