TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioners - In the absence of the documents which were required to be produced before this Court in terms of the order dated 27th January, 2015, it cannot be held that the deponents have been duly authorised by the petitioning-creditors to make and file the affidavit in support of the winding-up petition. This Court, therefore, is left with no option but to reject the petition. Petition dismissed. - C.A. Nos. 786 of 2014, 49 of 2015 And C.P. No. 1122 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 12-2-2015 - Biswanath Somadder, J. For the Appellant : Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Moushumi Bhattacharya, S. Sengupta, Udit Mendritta and Smita Mukherjee ORDER Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. On 27th January, 2015, when the petitioners prayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... describes her as the Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India at Singapore, both of which appear in the top sheet of the document. He submits that the power of attorney has been duly authenticated by the concerned officer of the High Commission of India, which is clear from the endorsement made by the office of the Indian High Commission at Singapore. He also refers to the provisions of section 85 and Sub-section (6) of section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and submits that the Court shall, in such circumstances, presume the authenticity of the said document, which was notarized in Singapore. In this context, he relies on several decisions, which are as follows:-- 1) AIR 1976 Delhi 263 [National and Grindlays Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -creditors. So far as the power of attorney is concerned, it appears to be authenticated by one Yang Yung Chong, a notary public of Singapore. No doubt, there is an endorsement made on the top sheet of the document, which carries the signature of Asha Upreti, Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India at Singapore. However, the endorsement dated 12th November, 2014, merely reads as follows: Seen in the Consular Section of the High Commission of India, Singapore. And not responsible for the contents. 5. As such, this endorsement cannot be held to be an authentication of the foreign document by the Consular Section of the High Commission of India, Singapore. 6. A question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, 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. However, it must be held that to the extent it dwells upon presumption as to powers of attorney, executed and authenticated by a Notary Public, the provision of section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be read in isolation to the specific provision as contained under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, insofar as notarial acts done by foreign notaries are concerned. For an Indian Court to recognise a notarial act done by a notary public at Singapore, it is imperative for the Central Government to issue a notification under section 14 of the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
