<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1404 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294713</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:16:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1404 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294713</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>