SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, J.
Jaldhi Overseas PTE Ltd. - Respondent
Versus
Bhushan Power & Steel Limited - Petitioner
E.C. Nos. 433, 434 & 436 of 2016
Decided On : 04-05-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Ratnanko Banerjee, Dhruba Ghosh , Sr. Advocates, Reetobroto Mitra, Pradip Kr. Sarawgi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Pratap Chatterjee, S.N. Mookherjee, Abhrajit Mitra Sr. Advocates, Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Jishnu Chowdhury, Rajashree Kajaria, Soumabho Ghosh, Advocates.

A duly executed power of attorney authenticated by a notary public in a foreign country, is entitled to the presumption of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in support thereof reliance has been placed on Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Charan Kaur alias Channo (supra).

Headnote:

JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The award debtor raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this Execution Application on the ground that the deponent to the affidavit supporting that the said application has not provided any document to show his authority to file the said application and in any event, the said application has not been notarized in the proper manner as required under law.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power of attorney executed in a foreign country, duly authenticated by a notary public, must be presumed to have been validly executed and authenticated, and such presumption in favour of the power of attorney executed in favour of Ajit Kumar Patni by Sripriya Balasubramanian, the Company Secretary will remain good and unassailable unless rebutted by the contestant by cogent evidence.

Issues: Whether the execution petition affirmed on the basis of the alleged Power of Attorney is in proper form and thus not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 85 of the Evidence Act, 1872 raises a presumption about the execution of a power of attorney provided two conditions are fulfilled. Firstly, it must be executed before a notary public and secondly, it must be authenticated by a notary public.

Final Decision: The court rejected the objection raised by the award debtor and held that the execution petition affirmed on the basis of the alleged Power of Attorney is in proper form and thus maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application for enforcement of a foreign award.

2. The award debtor has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this Execution Application on the ground that the deponent to the affidavit supporting that the said application has not provided any document to show his authority to file the said application and in any event, the said application has not been notarized in the proper manner as required under law. On this ground itself, the said application should be rejected and/or not be considered.

3. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the award holder has submitted that Jaldhi Overseas vide Board meeting dated 8th June, 2016, authorized its Company Secretary, a principal officer, to take necessary steps and authorise a person to file proceedings on behalf of Jaldhi.

4. Sripriya Balasubramanian, the Company Secretary, executed a Power of Attorney authorizing Ajit Kumar Patni to act on behalf of Jaldhi and institute necessary proceedings for enforcement and execution of the award.

5. This execution was witnessed by Joseph Lopez, a Notary Public of Singapore.

6. Upon due execution such Power of Attorney, Josepoh Lopez identified and authenticated the signature of Sripriya Balasubramanian, the Company Secretary of Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd. The notarial certificate itself states that the executant of the Power of Attorney Sripriya Balasubramanian, herself signed the document, and the Power of Attorney produced before the Court itself shows that at the last page the notary has certified the signature of the executant.

7. The entire process of notarization of the power of attorney as well as the identification and authentication of Sreepriya Subramaniam by Joseph Lopez was certified by the Singapore Academy of Law through its Director, Low Hui Min on June 9, 2016.

8. Upon such authentication by the Singapore Academy of Law, the same was certified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Singapore) as well as by the High Commission of India, Singapore.

9. The entire process adopted is in strict compliance of the chain of authentication for overseas document as stipulated in the Notaries Public Manual, Singapore, namely:

(i) Notarisation by notaries public

(ii) Authentication by Singapore Academy of Law

(iii) Further verification by Ministry of Foreign Affaris

(iv) Legislation by Embassies/Consulates

10. The authentication is also in strict compliance of Section 3 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oath and Fees) Act, 1948.

11. Although, there is no specific notification by the Central Government of any reciprocity with the Government of Singapore as envisaged in Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, however, the said provision is only directory in nature as qualified by the word “may”.

12. It is also an admitted position that Singapore Courts accepts affidavits or petitions notarized in India as would appear from the petition filed by the Judgment Debtor herein before the High Court at Singapore. Accordingly, the rule of reciprocity as envisaged under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, duly notarized document, by a Notary Public in Singapore, ought to be accepted by the Indian Courts as well, in comity with the international practice.

13. The learned Senior Counsel relying upon In re K.K. Ray (Private) Ltd. reported at 37 Company Cases at 745 (last paragraph), Alan Kaye v. Recovery Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, W.B. & Ors. reported at AIR 2006 Cal 158 (paragraphs 36, 37 & 39) and Charan Kaur alias Channo v. Pakhar Singh & Ors. reported at AIR (2004) Punjab & Haryana 121 (Paragraph 12) submitted that Courts have repeatedly held that considering international recognition of the notary in the modern world of commerce, industry and dealings between different nations and countries, affidavit sworn before Notary Public in a foreign country ought




















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top