9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of a power of attorney as general or special under Rule III of the Rules made by the High Court under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code. Analysis: The judgment revolves around determining whether the power of attorney presented by the plaintiffs qualifies as a general power of attorney as per Rule III of the Rules established by the High Court under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Rule in question replaced a previous provision and now requires recognized agents to hold general powers of attorney from parties not residing within the local jurisdiction of the Court where the appearance, application, or act is made. The key issue is whether the power of attorney in question is general or special, irrespective of the grantor's residency status. The document in question authorizes the appointed person to recover moneys due in relation to a specific mortgage bond, indicating a limited scope of authority for a particular purpose. The judgment emphasizes that a special power of attorney is characterized by authorization for acts related to a specific purpose, in this case, the realization of a specific debt. This conclusion is supported by legal authorities and precedents that distinguish between general and special agents based on the nature and extent of their authority. The judgment cites legal texts and authorities to highlight the distinction between general and special agents, emphasizing that a special agent is appointed for a particular occasion or purpose, limited by the appointment. The document under scrutiny is deemed to fall under the category of a special power of attorney due to its restricted scope of authority focused on a specific matter. The judgment further references a previous case to illustrate the requirement for a general power of attorney in specific legal formats for broader authority in legal proceedings. Ultimately, the High Court affirms the lower court's decision that the power of attorney in question is a special power of attorney, not a general one as required by the Rule. The judgment dismisses the appeal and upholds the lower court's decree, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between general and special powers of attorney based on the scope and nature of the authorized actions. In a concurring opinion, Shah, J., agrees with the analysis and conclusion presented by S.L. Batchelor, Acting, endorsing the decision to dismiss the appeal and affirm the lower court's ruling regarding the nature of the power of attorney in question.
|
