2015 (2) TMI 1349 - HC - Indian Laws

Notary Act took place outside India - Duly authorised by the petitioning-creditors to make and file the affidavit verifying the instant winding-up petition on the basis of the direction given by this Court - whether this Court can recognize a notarial act which took place before a notary public at Singapore? - HELD THAT - Since there is clearly no such notification of the Central Government in the Official Gazette granting recognition to the notarial acts done by the notary public of Singapore this Court is unable to take any judicial recognition of the document which has been handed over before this Court by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Authorization of deponents to file winding-up petition affidavit.

Analysis:
1. The judgment was delivered by Justice Biswanath Somadder on a petition where the petitioners sought leave under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959. The Court required the deponents to prove they were "duly authorized" by the petitioning creditors to file the affidavit. The petitioners' counsel produced a power of attorney issued by UBS AG, notarized in Singapore and endorsed by the Indian High Commission. However, the Court emphasized the need for valid resolutions from the petitioning-creditors, which were not provided.

2. The counsel relied on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cited cases to support the authenticity of the document. Despite the authentication by the Indian High Commission, the Court noted that the endorsement did not confirm the contents of the document. The Court highlighted the importance of recognizing notarial acts done by foreign notaries, referencing Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which requires reciprocity for recognition.

3. The judgment clarified that the absence of a Central Government notification recognizing notarial acts from Singapore prevented the Court from accepting the document as proof of authorization. Without the necessary documents as per the Court's order, the deponents could not be considered "duly authorized." Consequently, the petition was rejected, leading to the disposal of connected matters.

4. The Court allowed the petitioners to file a fresh petition if it adhered to the Court's observations and requirements. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and obtaining proper authorization in such matters. The decision was based on the lack of compliance with the Court's directive regarding the authorization of the deponents to file the winding-up petition affidavit.