9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Suit filed for recovery of money based on hypothecation, mortgage, guarantees, and indemnity. - Dispute regarding the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to file the suit. - Authentication of the power of attorney by a Notary Public. Analysis: 1. The suit was filed by a banking company against the defendants for recovery of money based on various legal grounds. The defendants raised an issue regarding the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to file the suit, questioning the validity of the power of attorney. 2. The plaintiff's attorney, Mr. John Herbert Keeble, claimed to be duly authorized to file the suit on behalf of the banking company. The defendants contested this claim, arguing that no suit could be instituted without a special resolution from the plaintiff company's Board of Directors. 3. The plaintiff later amended the name of the plaintiff-Bank to Grindlays Bank, and the defendants filed a written statement challenging the authority of Mr. Keeble to institute the suit. 4. The Court framed an issue to determine whether the plaint had been properly signed, verified, and instituted by a duly authorized party, highlighting the crucial aspect of the attorney's authority in initiating the legal proceedings. 5. The plaintiff submitted a photostat copy of the original power of attorney granted to Mr. Keeble by the banking company, which was denied by the defendants despite the authentication by a Notary Public. 6. The Court examined the original power of attorney, which bore the necessary seals and authentications by the Notary Public, in accordance with Section 85 of the Evidence Act, which presumes the validity of documents executed and authenticated before a notary public. 7. The defendants argued that the term "Notary Public" in the Evidence Act should be limited to notaries appointed under the Notaries Act 1952 in India. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the international recognition of notaries public for authentication purposes. 8. Based on the evidence presented, the Court held that the power of attorney in favor of Mr. Keeble was duly executed and authenticated, shifting the burden of proof to the defendants to rebut this presumption. 9. Consequently, the Court divided the main issue into sub-issues, focusing on whether the plaint was signed and verified by a duly authorized person and whether the suit was instituted by a duly authorized person, placing the burden on the defendants to prove otherwise. 10. The Court allowed the plaintiff's application, returning the original power of attorney to the plaintiff's counsel and directing the parties to appear for further directions in the suit. Conclusion: The judgment clarified the validity of the power of attorney in initiating legal proceedings, emphasizing the presumption of authenticity under the Evidence Act. It highlighted the importance of proper authentication by a Notary Public and placed the burden of proof on the defendants to challenge the authority of the plaintiff's attorney. The Court's decision to divide the main issue and shift the burden of proof signified a crucial development in the case, ensuring a fair assessment of the attorney's authority in filing the suit.
|
