Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajesh Kumar VS Anand Kumar...
2024 5 Supreme 54 : The scope of personal knowledge of a power of attorney holder in a civil suit is limited to acts performed by them in pursuance of the power of attorney. They cannot depose for the principal in respect of matters that require personal knowledge, such as the principal''''s state of mind or readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations. Specifically, in a suit for specific performance under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff (principal) must personally appear in court to testify about their own readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as this involves personal knowledge and conduct. A power of attorney holder cannot substitute for the principal in such matters, even if they have authority to file the suit or handle transactions, unless they themselves were directly involved in the act or transaction. However, if the attorney-holder has performed acts under the power of attorney, they may give evidence regarding those specific acts. The exception applies only when the principal has no personal involvement in the matter and all affairs are managed exclusively by the attorney-holder, such as in cases involving spouses, parents managing children’s affairs, or close family members managing elderly relatives’ affairs.Checking relevance for Manisha Mahendra Gala VS Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani...
2024 3 Supreme 627 : A Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within their personal knowledge and not about facts that are outside their personal knowledge, facts known only to the person they represent, or facts that occurred before they became involved in the matter. The holder must have personally witnessed the transaction or have direct knowledge of it to be admissible as a witness. Evidence given by a Power of Attorney holder who lacks such personal knowledge is considered meaningless for establishing claims, especially when the facts in question predate their appointment or were not within their direct experience.Checking relevance for A. C. Narayanan VS State of Maharashtra...
2013 6 Supreme 705 : The scope of personal knowledge of a power of attorney holder in a civil suit (or criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) is limited to facts that the attorney holder has personally witnessed or directly experienced in the course of their duties as an agent of the principal. The power of attorney holder may depose and verify on oath before the court to prove the contents of the complaint, but only if they have personal knowledge of the transaction. This includes situations where the attorney holder is in charge of the business of the payee and is the sole person personally aware of the transactions. However, the attorney holder cannot depose on matters that are exclusively within the personal knowledge of the principal, such as the principal''''s own financial contributions or personal circumstances. The complaint must explicitly assert the attorney holder''''s personal knowledge of the transaction. If the attorney holder lacks such knowledge, they cannot be examined as a witness. The power of attorney holder can file, appear, and depose for the purpose of issuing process, but only in respect of acts they have personally performed or witnessed as part of their agency role.Checking relevance for TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. VS SMS Asia Private Limited...
2022 3 Supreme 147 : The scope of personal knowledge of a power of attorney holder in a civil suit (specifically in the context of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) requires that the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee or possess due knowledge regarding the transaction. Crucially, the complaint must explicitly assert the power of attorney holder''''s knowledge of the transaction. Without such explicit averment, the holder cannot be examined as a witness. This principle was affirmed in the judgment of A.C. Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 11 SCC 790, which established that an explicit assertion of personal knowledge in the complaint is mandatory for the power of attorney holder to be competent to file and verify the complaint.Checking relevance for Vinita S. Rao VS Essen Corporate Services...
2015 3 Supreme 516 : The scope of personal knowledge of a power of attorney holder in a civil suit (specifically under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) is that the power of attorney holder can file a complaint and verify it on oath only if they have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee or holder in due course, or possess due knowledge regarding the transactions. The law requires that the power of attorney holder must have specific, actual knowledge of the relevant transaction; they cannot be examined as a witness if they lack such knowledge. This knowledge must be explicitly asserted in the complaint. However, the Magistrate is not mandatorily required to examine the complainant or their witness on oath before issuing process, and may rely on the affidavit verification filed by the complainant. The power of attorney holder steps into the shoes of the principal at the pre-summoning stage when their sworn statement is recorded.
