Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18.05.2026
MICROWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr.
Adv. with Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi & Ms. Mitali Yadav, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajeev Mehra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Arjun Narang, Mr. Pranav Tanwar & Ms. Shreya Vedantika Mehra, Advs. for R-
1.
Mr. Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Mr. Vipul Kumar, GP, Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra & Mr. Neeraj P. Raj, Advs. for R-5/UOI.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the Order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) in Misc. Appeal EDART No. 1952 of 2025.
2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned DRAT dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioners and affirmed the Order dated 11.09.2025 (pronounced on 29.09.2025), passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (“DRT”) in O.A. No. 753 of 2016, whereby the Petitioners were declined permission to rectify defects in the verification and supporting affidavit filed along with the Written Statement already on record.
3. Briefly stated, Respondent No.1 instituted O.A. No. 753 of 2016 before the learned DRT seeking recovery against Petitioners/defendant nos.[1] and 2 and other defendants. The Petitioners entered appearance and filed a Written Statement in March 2017 contesting the claim on merits and raising factual and legal defenses. The said Written Statement was filed jointly on behalf of Petitioners/defendant nos.[1] and 2 as well as defendant no.5 in the Original Application.
4. While filing the Written Statement, an inadvertent procedural defect occurred in the verification clause to the Written Statement as well as in the supporting affidavit. The Written Statement was signed and verified by one Mr. B.B. Chugh. However, the verification clause did not specifically disclose the name and capacity in which the verification was being made or expressly indicate that the Written Statement was being filed on behalf of Petitioners/defendant nos.[1] and 2 and defendant no. 5. Along with the Written Statement, an affidavit purportedly of Mr. Anil Kumar Jain, Vice President (Legal and Taxation) of Petitioner No. 2, was also filed stating that he had been authorised to file the Written Statement on behalf of Petitioners/defendant nos.[1] and 2 and defendant no. 5. However, the said affidavit also came to be signed by Mr. B.B. Chugh.
5. Upon noticing the aforesaid defect, the Petitioners moved I.A. No. 400 of 2022 before the learned DRT seeking permission to place on record properly executed verification(s) and supporting affidavit(s) in relation to the Written Statement already on record. The Petitioners specifically clarified that they were neither seeking to amend nor substitute the Written Statement and that no new plea or defence was being introduced. The contents of the Written Statement were to remain entirely unchanged and the application was confined solely to curing defects relating to verification and authentication of the pleadings already forming part of the record.
6. The learned DRT initially allowed the said application vide order dated 17.03.2022, treating the defects in verification and supporting affidavit as procedural and curable in nature. However, the said order was subsequently set aside by the learned DRAT vide order dated 06.12.2022 and the matter was remanded to the learned DRT for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the learned DRT, vide order dated 11.09.2025 (pronounced on 29.09.2025), dismissed I.A. No. 400 of 2022 holding that the defects in the verification to the Written Statement and the supporting affidavit could not be permitted to be rectified at that stage. The said order was thereafter affirmed by the learned DRAT by way of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, holding that permitting rectification of the verification to the Written Statement and the supporting affidavit would effectively amount to permitting the filing of a fresh Written Statement. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have preferred the present petition.
7. The Impugned Order is assailed by the Petitioners submitting that the learned DRT and learned DRAT erred in treating rectification of defects in the verification and the supporting affidavit to the Written Statement as tantamount to filing a fresh Written Statement, despite the admitted position that the Written Statement filed in March 2017 has remained unchanged in its contents and defense throughout. It is submitted that the defect was purely procedural in nature, arising from the inadvertent signing of the verification to the Written Statement and the supporting affidavit, and that no new plea, amendment, or substitution was ever sought. The Petitioners contend that defects in verification and supporting affidavits are curable procedural irregularities and procedural technicalities cannot override substantive adjudication on merits, particularly when no prejudice has been caused to Respondent No.1, which has contested the proceedings for years on the basis of the same Written Statement.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on the record.
9. The issue that arises for consideration is whether rectification of defects in the verification and supporting affidavit to a Written Statement already on record, without any alteration whatsoever to the pleadings themselves, could be treated as tantamount to permitting the filing of a fresh Written Statement.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer has to be in the negative.
11. It is not disputed that the Written Statement filed by the Petitioners in March 2017 has remained unchanged throughout the proceedings. No new plea has been sought to be introduced, no admission has been withdrawn, and the nature of the defence has not been altered in any manner whatsoever. The Petitioners merely seek permission to place on record properly executed verification(s) and supporting affidavit(s) in respect of the Written Statement already forming part of the record.
12. The controversy essentially arises from the fact that while the Written Statement was signed and verified by Mr. B.B. Chugh, the supporting affidavit stated to have been filed on behalf of Mr. Anil Kumar Jain also came to be signed by Mr. B.B. Chugh. Further, the verification clause did not specifically disclose the capacity in which the verification was being made or clearly indicate that the Written Statement was being filed on behalf of Petitioners/defendant nos.[1] and 2 and defendant no. 5. The defect, therefore, pertains to the manner of verification and authentication of the pleadings and not to the pleadings themselves. The contents of the Written Statement, the defense raised therein, and the stand taken by the Petitioners have remained unchanged throughout.
13. Significantly, the Petitioners never sought permission to file an additional, substituted, or fresh Written Statement. The application filed before the learned DRT was confined strictly to rectification of defects in the verification and supporting affidavit supporting the Written Statement already on record. No amendment within the meaning of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was ever sought. No factual foundation was proposed to be altered, no new defence was sought to be introduced, and no admission was sought to be withdrawn.
14. Order VI Rules 14 and 15 of the CPC deal with signing and verification of pleadings. Defects relating thereto have consistently been treated by courts as curable procedural irregularities unless such defects go to the root of the matter or cause demonstrable prejudice to the opposite party. Verification is intended to authenticate pleadings already on record; it is not meant to defeat adjudication on merits on account of inadvertent procedural lapses.
15. The present case is not one where the Written Statement itself was absent from record, nor is it a case where pleadings were never filed on behalf of the Petitioners. The Written Statement admittedly remained on record and the proceedings continued on that basis for several years. The respondent bank contested the matter throughout on the basis of the same defence. The issue raised pertains only to defects in the manner in which the verification and supporting affidavit came to be executed.
16. In United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, (1996) 6 SCC 660, the Supreme Court held that defects relating to signing and verification of pleadings are procedural irregularities which are capable of being cured. The Supreme Court held as under: “9. In cases like the present where suits are instituted or defended on behalf of a public corporation, public interest should not be permitted to be defeated on a mere technicality. Procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause. There is sufficient power in the courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case. As far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity which is curable.
10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name. Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by or against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and dehors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of its officers a corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
11. The courts below could have held that Shri L.K. Rohatgi must have been empowered to sign the plaint on behalf of the appellant. In the alternative it would have been legitimate to hold that the manner in which the suit was conducted showed that the appellant- Bank must have ratified the action of Shri L.K. Rohatgi in signing the plaint. If, for any reason whatsoever, the courts below were still unable to come to this conclusion, then either of the appellate courts ought to have exercised their jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and should have directed a proper power of attorney to be produced or they could have ordered Shri L.K. Rohatgi or any other competent person to be examined as a witness in order to prove ratification or the authority of Shri L.K. Rohatgi to sign the plaint. Such a power should be exercised by a court in order to ensure that injustice is not done by rejection of a genuine claim.”
17. Similarly, in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75, the Supreme Court reiterated that curable procedural defects ought not to defeat substantive rights and observed that procedure is intended to advance the cause of justice and not obstruct it, wherein the Supreme Court held as below:
18. Furthermore, in the facts of the present case, no prejudice whatsoever has been demonstrated to have been caused to Respondent No.1 if the Petitioners are permitted to place on record properly executed verification(s) and supporting affidavit(s). The Written Statement has remained unchanged throughout and the proceedings have continued for years on the basis thereof. Merely because the defect came to be noticed and sought to be rectified at a subsequent stage would not, by itself, render such defect incurable.
19. The reasoning adopted by the learned DRT and affirmed by the learned DRAT, that rectification of defects in verification and supporting affidavit would amount to permitting filing of a fresh Written Statement, in the opinion of this Court, proceeds on an erroneous amalgamation of substantive pleadings with procedural requirements relating to authentication thereof. Rectification of defects in verification, without any alteration to the pleadings themselves, cannot be equated with introduction of a new defence or filing of a fresh Written Statement.
20. It is well settled that procedural law is intended to advance the cause of justice. Unless serious prejudice is shown or the defect goes to the root of the matter, courts ought to adopt a liberal approach in permitting rectification of curable procedural defects, particularly where substantive pleadings have remained unchanged.
21. The approach adopted by the learned Tribunals below elevates procedural form over substantive adjudication and runs contrary to the settled principle that curable procedural irregularities ought not to be permitted to defeat adjudication on merits, particularly in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice. This Court is therefore unable to sustain the impugned orders.
22. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned DRAT in Misc. Appeal EDART No. 1952 of 2025, as well as the order dated 11.09.2025 (pronounced on 29.09.2025) passed by the learned DRT-II in I.A. No. 400 of 2022 in O.A. No. 753 of 2016, are set aside.
23. The Petitioners are permitted to place on record a duly executed verification(s) and supporting affidavit(s) to the Written Statement within a period of two weeks from today.
24. It is further clarified that the Petitioners shall not alter, amend, supplement, substitute, or modify the contents of the Written Statement already on record in any manner whatsoever.
25. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J MAY 18, 2026/ab/kp/tr