1976 (1) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght Place Branch, who described himself as a duly constituted attorney and Principal Officer of the plaintiff-Bank competent to sign the plaint and to institute the suit and also being conversant with the facts of the case. The plaint was signed and verified by the said Manager as constituted attorney, and the suit was filed through Advocates in this Court. (3) Later on, the plaint was amended as the name of the plaintiff- Bank had been changed into Grindlays Bank instead of National and Grindlays Bank. (4) In the amended written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, a plea was taken that, "it is not admitted that the plaint has been properly signed and the suit has been instituted by a competent person and under proper aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e suit is on the defendants. (7) The application has been opposed on behalf of the defendants. (8) At the time of hearing, Mr. Mahinder Narain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, produced before me the original Power of Attorney. This document shows that it is a power of attorney in favor of John Herbert Keeble executed on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank. It also bears the seal of the plaintiff-Bank as well as necessary authentication of due execution by the aforesaid Notary Public. It also bears the seal of the Notary Public. The authentication by the aforesaid Notary Public reads as under: "IJOHNMARTYN Dimond, of the City of London Notary Public duly admitted and sworn practicing in the said City Do hereby Certify and Attest that I ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in on the face of it shows to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public. In view of Section 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. Once the original document is produced purporting to be a power of attorney so executed and attested, as stated in S. 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. The provision is mandatory, and it is open to the Court to presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper execution of the power of attorney have been duly fulfilled. There is no doubt that the section is not exhaustive and there are different legal modes of executing a power of attorney, but, once the power of attorney....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ower of attorney in the present day of international commerce, there is no reason to limit the word "Notary Public" in S. 85 or Section 57 to Notaries appointed in India. The fact that notaries public of foreign countries have been recognised as proper authorities for due execution and authentication for purpose of section 85 of the Evidence Act is illustrated by the Supreme Court in case Jugraj Singh and anr. v. Jaswant Singh and or s. [1971]1SCR38 . In this case the Supreme Court held that a power of attorney executed and authenticated before a notary public of California satisfied the test of S. 85 of the Evidence Act and S. 33 of the Indian Registration Act. If the interpretation of notary public is limited to notaries public ....