<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (1) TMI 179 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194425</link>
    <description>A power of attorney that on its face is executed before and authenticated by a foreign notary public attracts the presumption of due execution under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term &quot;notary public&quot; is construed broadly and is not confined to Indian notaries where commercial dealings involve foreign jurisdictions. The notary&#039;s seal and signature are matters of judicial notice under Section 57(6), and once the original document expressly authorises institution of suits, the presumption operates in favour of proper authorisation unless rebutted. The burden to dispute authority to institute the suit therefore shifts to the party challenging the document.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:16:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 179 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194425</link>
      <description>A power of attorney that on its face is executed before and authenticated by a foreign notary public attracts the presumption of due execution under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The term &quot;notary public&quot; is construed broadly and is not confined to Indian notaries where commercial dealings involve foreign jurisdictions. The notary&#039;s seal and signature are matters of judicial notice under Section 57(6), and once the original document expressly authorises institution of suits, the presumption operates in favour of proper authorisation unless rebutted. The burden to dispute authority to institute the suit therefore shifts to the party challenging the document.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>