Lord Thankerton.-

The present appeal arises out of an application by the present appellant for permission to proceed in the liquidation under S. 171, Companies Act, with an application in which he or his predecessor applied to have his name substituted for that of the respondent Bank in a preliminary mortgage decree. The whole warrant for that application was based on an assignment alleged to have been made by the respondent Bank in favour of the appellant prior to the date of liquidation. That document, on the face of it, shows that it was not signed by any director or official of the Bank. It shows, further, as far as one can see, no signature on behalf of the Bank. Issue 5, which has been considered and as to which concurrent findings have been made by the Courts in India, raises a question of the authority of Balakram to act on behalf of the Bank. That was based on an alleged power-of-attorney by the Bank in favour of Balakram. The principal of the power-of-attorney has not been produced and its disappearance, or the impossibility of producing it in the view of the Courts in India has not been satisfactorily proved. Therefore, the conditions have not been fulfilled under which S