Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the original power of attorney, executed and authenticated before a foreign notary public, attracted the statutory presumption of due execution and authentication, and whether the burden of disputing authority to institute the suit shifted to the defendants.
Analysis: A power of attorney that on its face purports to have been executed before and authenticated by a notary public falls within the presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The expression 'notary public' was construed broadly so that it is not confined to notaries appointed in India alone, particularly where commercial dealings involve foreign jurisdictions. The seal and signature of the notary are matters of judicial notice under Section 57(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once such an original document is produced and it expressly authorises institution of suits, the presumption operates in favour of due execution and authentication, subject to rebuttal by the opposite party.
Conclusion: The original power of attorney was to be presumed duly executed and authenticated, and the burden on the issue of proper institution of the suit stood shifted to the defendants. The application was allowed to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney purporting to have been executed before and authenticated by a foreign notary public attracts the presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the burden of disproving the authority so conferred shifts to the party challenging it.