Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33630 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2256 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Fast Track Furniture And Interiors (India) Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Others Respondent :- Falcon Chemox Pvt. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Keshav,Satya Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Prateek Rai Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners have assailed the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the court below namely the Judge, Small Cause in SCC Suit No. 11 of 2017 taking on record the resolution of Board of Directors of the Company giving assignment of Secretaryship of the Company to Sri Abhinav Jain. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the evidence was led and concluded by the parties and it had come during the course of examination of Mr. Abhinav Jain that such resolution was not part of the record, granting permission to bring such application on record amounts to creating evidence, that the document in question has been filed to fulfill the lacuna. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his testimony and during cross examination Mr. Abhinav Jain could not disclose his status as a Director of the Company and hence bringing the resolution on record amounts to creating an evidence. Per contra it is argued by Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the respondents that by virtue of resolution adopted by the Board of Directors a person has been authorized as Secretary to sign the pleadings and documents on behalf of the Company which is a juristic person that has instituted the suit and hence document is nothing but to continue the suit proceedings. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & others, 1997 0 AIR (SC) 3, in which vide para 10 the Court has observed that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or Power of Attorney being executed, a person referred to under Rule 1 of Order 29 to represent the company by virtue of the office that he holds, may sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Company/ Corporation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, in my view, merely because a resolution by which the Secretary was appointed by the Board of Directors, if is being brought on record would hardly prejudice to the defendant/ petitioner. It is a company which has instituted a suit and therefore, the resolution appointing Secretary is brought on record only for the purposes of continuation of suit proceedings. In so far as the argument advanced by Sri Hari Keshav that during the cross examination defendant could not establish his status either as Director of the Company, in my considered view still holds merit subject to appreciation of testimony by the Court as the testimony of Abhinav Jain is to be tested on the basis of recitals made in the examination in chief and cross examination conducted. However, I may clarify here at this stage that bringing the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company on record acknowledging appointment of the Secretary will have no bearing upon the merits of the case as the certificate will be taken only for the purposes of continuation of suit. With these observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad