Foreign notarised power of attorney requires reciprocal statutory recognition and authentication before it can be relied on in India.

A foreign power of attorney notarised in Bangladesh could not be relied upon in India on the material before the Court because the statutory presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act operates only with the reciprocal-recognition framework under Section 14 of the Notaries Act. In the absence of Indian Embassy authentication and any Gazette notification recognising Bangladesh notarial acts for India, the document was not shown to be duly authenticable for the purpose claimed. The order below was therefore set aside for want of statutory foundation, while the connected revisional application was treated as premature and dismissed with liberty to renew the request after proper compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a power of attorney executed and notarised in Bangladesh could be relied upon in India without compliance with the statutory requirements governing recognition of foreign notarial acts. (ii) Whether the impugned order dealing with impleadment and authentication of the power of attorney could be sustained, and whether the later revisional application was premature.

Issue (i): Whether a power of attorney executed and notarised in Bangladesh could be relied upon in India without compliance with the statutory requirements governing recognition of foreign notarial acts.

Analysis: Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates a presumption regarding a power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a notary public or specified foreign/public authorities, but that presumption is rebuttable and cannot be applied in isolation. It must be read with Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which requires reciprocal recognition of foreign notarial acts through a notification by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. In the absence of authentication by the Indian Embassy and in the absence of any notification showing recognition of Bangladesh notarial acts for India, the document could not be treated as duly authenticated for the purpose claimed.

Conclusion: The foreign notarised power of attorney was not shown to be validly recognisable in India on the material placed before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order dealing with impleadment and authentication of the power of attorney could be sustained, and whether the later revisional application was premature.

Analysis: The order of the court below was held unsustainable because it proceeded without the necessary statutory foundation for recognising the foreign notarisation. Accordingly, that order was set aside. In the connected matter, the Court found the revisional application to be premature and dismissed it at that stage, while granting liberty to renew the request in accordance with the directions issued.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, while the connected revisional application was dismissed as premature.

Final Conclusion: The judgment granted relief against the order recognising the foreign notarised document without the required statutory compliance, but left open the opportunity to seek fresh consideration on proper authentication and statutory recognition.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign notarised power of attorney can be acted upon in India only when the statutory presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is supported by the reciprocal-recognition mechanism under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952.

---