TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....executed before a Notary Public nor does it bear any authentication by a Notary Public. It is pertinent to mention here that along with the suit a power of attorney was filed which was not notarised and a fresh power of attorney was filed on 29.7.2000 along with application for issuing summons for judgment. 3. Section 85 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that the court shall presume that every document purporting to be power of attorney and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public or any court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice Consul or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated. 4. In D.H.M. Framji and Ors. v. The Eastern Union Bank Ltd. Chittagong A.I.R.1951 Pun 371, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by a minor by his next friend, his aunt. The defendant had executed a promissory note in favor of a firm known as kisan Bai and Sukalchand Kanmal of which plaintiff claimed to be the owner. The plaint was signed and verified by one Saremal and it was presented by a pleader Mr. Thakor, whose vakalatnama had been signed by Saremal. The case of the plaintiff was that Saremal was the duly authorized agent of Bai Dhapu to present the plaint, to sign it and to appoint a pleader, Saremal being authorized so to act under the power of attorney. It was under these circumstances held that for the purpose of appointing a recognised agent to take some step in the suit, the next friend is to be regarded as a party to the suit within the meaning of Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t duly notarised does not confer power upon the person to institute the suit. The objection taken by the learned counsel is that the said power of attorney does not bear any authentication by a Notary Public and Therefore Mr. Maggon had no authority to file the present suit and as a consequence such a suit was never properly instituted. 10. The importance of power of attorney without Notarization cannot be undermined but at the same time if such a defect is removed subsequently during the pendency of the suit and that too is followed by ratification of the authority of a person who has been authorized to institute the suit, it is not such a fatal infirmity that would hit at the maintainability of the suit itself. 11. Mr. Kumar has also ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard to the maintainability of the suit under Order 37 CPC. According to the learned counsel, it is neither a suit upon Bills of Exchange nor Hundies nor Promissory Note nor for recovery of any debt/liquidated payment arising out of any written contract and as such the suit does not fall within the ambit of Order 37 CPC. 15. The plaintiff is a firm engaged in the business of export of various commodities including printing machines and its spare parts. The plaintiff was associated with the defendants for the purchase of blank video cassettes. The plaintiff purchased these blank video cassettes from the defendants and exported the same. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit on the basis of written contracts as embodied in the purchase ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the request of the counsel the defendants had supplied huge quantity of blank video cassette to its customer M/s. Twintrac Limited on their personal guarantee through M/s. Murtaza Baquer Muhebi Electronics is being raised for the first time in the application for leave to defend. The plea is sham and not available to the defendants because no correspondence was addressed by the defendants prior to the filing of the suit in this regard. Secondly payment in respect of this transaction was made vide bill invoice dated 24.7.1995. It is further contended by Mr. Nayar that payment for 840 cartons of blank video tapes was duly made and Therefore the counter-claim of the defendant is baseless. 19. However to counter this contention, Mr. Kumar, has....