Dismissed¶49

Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd.

Madras HC23 Mar 2026A/914/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; Order XIV Rule 8 OS Rules; authorised representative; letter of authorisation dated 01.11.2025; board resolution; defect curable or ratifiable; suit by Chinese company in Madras Commercial Division; State Bank of Travancore; Indian Commerce and Industries; New Shelter Enterprises; Schmenger; United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar; Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC; maintainability; authority to institute suit; application dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint may be rejected only if the suit appears from a statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. ¶44

Vikas Mandoth Vs Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC as barred by law, on the ground that the first plaintiff instituted the suit through an authorised representative without due authorisation by a resolution of its board of directors.

¶17

Court's answer

Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, a plaint may be rejected only if the suit appears from a statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Any defect in the letter of authorisation relied on by the first plaintiff is curable or ratifiable; therefore, on the basis of a mere assertion that the first plaintiff had not duly authorised the institution of the suit through Mr.Vikram Kumar, it cannot be concluded that the suit is barred by any law, and the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d).

¶44

Key takeaways

The judgments relied on by the defendant drew their conclusions in course of final disposal (State Bank of Travancore arose from an appeal in which maintainability was an issue; Indian Commerce and Industries arose from an ejectment suit), and the Court is unable to endorse the Bombay High Court's rejection of the plaint in New Shelter Enterprises merely because a board resolution was not referred to in the plaint.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Commercial Division), Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J. (23.03.2026): A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025 — application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the OS Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint, dismissed without any order as to costs. The first plaintiff, a company incorporated in China, instituted the suit through authorised representative Mr.Vikram Kumar under a letter of authorisation dated 01.11.2025; the defendant contended the suit was barred by law for want of a board resolution, citing New Shelter Enterprises, Indian Commerce and Industries, State Bank of Travancore and Schmenger; the plaintiffs' counsel relied on United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar. Held: under Order VII Rule 11(d) a plaint may be rejected only where the suit appears from a statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; any defect in the letter of authorisation is curable or ratifiable, and a mere assertion of want of due authorisation does not render the suit barred by law. The precedents cited by the defendant drew their conclusions in course of final disposal (maintainability tried as an issue in State Bank of Travancore; ejectment suit in Indian Commerce and Industries), and the Court declined to endorse the Bombay High Court's rejection of a plaint in New Shelter Enterprises merely because no board resolution was referred to in the plaint.

¶1

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.307 of 2025

¶7

Mr.Vikas Mandoth, KLP Abhinandan, F-1701, No.1, Strahans Road, Pattalam, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 012 India.

¶8

.. Applicant/Defendant

¶9

¶10

1.M/s.Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., Xiaodong Street, Loutang Town, Jiading District, Shanghai, China represented by its Authorised Representative Mr.Vikram Kumar Having Office at No.8, Reddy Raman Street, 4^th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079 Tamil Nadu, India.

¶11

2.Mr.Valaram Proprietor of M/s.Prince Impex, No.33, Reddy Raman Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Tamil Nadu, India. .. Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶12

1/6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Prayer : Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the OS Rules

¶15

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025

¶16

Prayer : Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the OS Rules

¶17

Read With Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025.

¶18

For Applicant : Mr.Jayesh Kumar Daga A For Respondents : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The first plaintiff is a company incorporated in China. The suit has

¶21

been instituted through an authorised representative, Mr.Vikram Kumar.

¶22

One of the documents filed along with the plaint is letter of authorisation dated 01.11.2025.

¶23

The defendant has applied for rejection of plaint under Order VII

¶24

Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC).

¶25

Learned counsel for the defendant asserts that the suit is barred

¶26

by law in view of the first plaintiff not being duly authorised by a resolution of the board of directors. In support of this contention, he relies

¶27

upon the following judgments:

¶28

2/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025

¶31

(i) New Shelter Enterprises and others v. Meenakshi and others,

¶32

MANU/MH/1542/2017 (New Shelter Enterprises) ;

¶33

(ii) Indian Commerce and Industries Private Limited v.

¶34

Swadharma Swarajya Sangha, MANU/TN/1008/1994 (Indian Commerce and Industries);

¶35

(iii) State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) P. Ltd., MANU/SC/0280/2011 (State Bank of Travancore);

¶36

(iv) Schmenger GMBH and Company Leder v. Saddler Shoes Private Limited, MANU/TN/3885/2010 (Schmenger);

¶37

In response, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the first plaintiff submitted a letter of authorisation. After contending that any defect relating to such letter of authorisation is curable, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 660 (Naresh Kumar) . Learned counsel for the defendant pointed out that Naresh Kumar dealt with Order XXIX Rule 1 of the CPC and not with the authority to institute an action, and that this was clarified in Schmenger.

¶38

Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC reads as under:

¶39

“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be 3/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

rejected in the following cases

¶42

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025

¶43

(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. ”

¶44

As is evident from the text of clause (d), a plaint may be rejected under this clause if the suit appears from a statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. In the plaint, the plaintiff asserts that the institution of the suit on behalf of the first plaintiff is through its authorised representative, Mr. Vikram Kumar. This assertion is supported by a letter of authorisation (plaint document no.6). Assuming such letter of authorisation does not fulfil the requirements of applicable law, the defect is curable or ratifiable. On the basis of an assertion that the first plaintiff had not duly authorised the institution of the suit through Mr. Vikram Kumar, it cannot be concluded that the suit is barred by any law.

¶45

As regards judgments cited by learned counsel for the defendant, the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore arose out of an appeal from a judgment and decree in which maintainability was raised as an issue. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in Indian 4/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

A.No.914 of 2026 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.307 of 2025

¶48

Commerce and Industries arose out of an ejectment suit. Put differently, these were conclusions drawn in course of final disposal to the effect that the respective suit had not been instituted with due authority. Only the order of the Bombay High Court in New Shelter Enterprises was issued in an application for rejection of plaint. Merely on the ground that a board resolution was not referred to in the plaint, the plaint came to be rejected by that order. Given the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d), I am unable to endorse the conclusion reached by the Bombay High Court.

¶49