Foreign power of attorney notarisation in Singapore was insufficient without reciprocal recognition for filing authority

A winding-up petition could not be verified and filed by the deponents because they were not duly authorised by the petitioning creditors. The Court required valid board resolutions supported by powers of attorney, but none were produced. The power of attorney relied on was notarised in Singapore, and the consular endorsement did not establish responsibility for its contents. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be applied by itself to foreign notarial acts; recognition in India depended on reciprocity under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the relevant Central Government notification. In the absence of such notification, the foreign notarial act was not judicially recognisable, and the petition was liable to rejection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the deponents were duly authorised by the petitioning creditors to verify and file the winding-up petition on the basis of a foreign power of attorney notarised in Singapore.

Analysis: The direction earlier issued by the Court required production of valid board resolutions of the petitioning creditors supported by powers of attorney. No valid resolutions were produced. The power of attorney relied upon was notarised by a foreign notary in Singapore, and the consular endorsement merely stated that it had been seen in the Consular Section and that no responsibility was taken for its contents. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be applied in isolation where foreign notarial acts are concerned. Recognition of such an act in India depends on reciprocal recognition under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, and the Central Government notification contemplated therein. In the absence of such notification, the foreign notarial act could not be judicially recognised.

Conclusion: The deponents were not duly authorised, and the winding-up petition was liable to be rejected.

---