9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit dismissal due to lack of authorization of the person filing the suit. 2. Interpretation of Section 85 of the Evidence Act regarding the execution and authentication of a power of attorney. 3. Comparison of judgments where powers of attorney were executed before a Notary Public and authenticated. 4. Examination of evidence to prove due execution of a power of attorney and resolution of the Board of Directors. Analysis: 1. The appellant's suit for recovery was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds of lack of authorization of the person filing the suit, without deciding any other points in the suit. 2. The judgment focused on whether the suit was filed by a duly authorized person, referring to the power of attorney executed by the company's Director and Chief Accountant, but lacking proof of authorization to execute on behalf of the company. 3. The appellant relied on Section 85 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the power of attorney should be presumed duly executed as attested by a Notary Public, citing previous judgments where such authentication was crucial. 4. The respondent referenced judgments where it was not proven that the person filing the suit was authorized by the company, emphasizing the importance of due execution and authentication of the power of attorney. 5. The court examined the power of attorney in question, noting the absence of authentication by a Notary Public despite being attested after the seal was affixed, highlighting the necessity of satisfying both conditions under Section 85. 6. Lack of evidence showing due execution or Board resolution led to the dismissal of the appeal, as the court found no justification for remand based on previous case outcomes and procedural requirements.
|
