Foreign notarised power of attorney accepted for petition verification; absence of Section 14 notification did not defeat maintainability.

A company petition for winding up may be verified by a duly authorised person where leave is granted for sufficient reason, and a board-backed power of attorney executed through an authorised officer can satisfy that requirement. A power of attorney executed and notarised in China attracted the presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, while Section 57 required judicial notice of the notary's seal. Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 did not limit or override those Evidence Act provisions, so a Central Government notification was not necessary for reliance on the foreign notarisation. The objection to maintainability therefore failed, and the petition was admitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition for winding up could be treated as duly verified when the verification was by a constituted attorney acting under a power of attorney executed and notarized in China, and whether the absence of a notification under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 barred reliance on that power of attorney in view of Sections 85 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Verification of a company petition under Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 may be made by an authorised person when leave is granted for sufficient reason. The authority in the present case was created by board resolution and embodied in a power of attorney executed by the company through its authorised officer. Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raises a presumption in favour of a power of attorney executed before or authenticated by a Notary Public, and Section 57 of the same Act requires judicial notice of the seals of Notaries Public. Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 deals with reciprocal recognition of notarial acts generally, but it does not control or restrict the operation of Sections 85 and 57 of the Evidence Act in relation to powers of attorney. The Court held that recognition of the foreign notarial act did not depend on a Central Government notification under Section 14.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was accepted as valid for the purpose of verification, the objection to maintainability failed, and the petition was admitted.

---