M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) Originally the complainants have filed the case against the Bharti Airtel Ltd., represented by Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman and Managing Director, which was opposed by filing an application, who has represented for Petitioner/Opposite Party. As they have no objection to delete the individual name viz., Sunil Bharti Mittal, and detaining the Chairman and Managing Director alone, with cause title Bharti Airtel Ltd., an order has been passed on 18.09.2007 which is not challenged, therefore, it reached finality. Thereafter, CMP.72/2008 has been filed, before the lower Forum seeking to delete even the Chairman and Managing Director which was negatived on opposing, by the order dated 12.08.2008 which is under challenge before this Commission. M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., a legal entity should be represented as per the Companies Act. In this way, the claim is made as seen, the Bharti Airtel Ltd., represented by Chairman and Managing Director, by designation. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity, in the cause title. However, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit, that as per the General Power of Attorney dated 04.07.2005, Senior Manager (Legal) of the Company alone is competent to represent the Company. By perusing the affidavit, I am unable to find any specific clause, as if the Senior Manager (Legal) of the Company or P. Swaminathan, Chief Executive Officer (Mobile Services) is competent to represent M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., If at all Petitioner should have produced some documents, if any evidencing who is competent to represent M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., which is absent. In the absence of any material, I do not find any infirmity in the cause title M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director. Hence, in the lower Forum order, there is no infirmity warranting our inference. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.;