9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity to pay the outstanding amount of USD 534,678.80 to the Petitioner and assured payment respectively by March 2013 and April 2013. There is a failure to pay on the part of the Respondent. The statutory demand notice addressed by the Petitioner in respect of this debt is replied by the Respondent by its letter dated 30 December 2014. Once again, the Respondent categorically admits the responsibility to pay the amount but has pleaded temporary financial difficulties. In sum, there is no defence on merits voiced in the correspondence between the parties prior to the filing of the petition. Indeed no defence was urged even at the hearing of the petition, save and except the defence as to the maintainability of the petition on account of the Petitioner's failure to verify the petition in accordance with law. That defence is discussed below. 2. The Petitioner is a body corporate. The petition has, however, not been verified by any director, secretary or principal officer of the Petitioner. The petition is verified by a constituted attorney. In support of the authority of the constituted attorney to verify the petition, the petition relies on a power of attorney. It is the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. The constituted attorney has signed and verified the petition on the basis of this power of attorney. 4. Rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 provides for verification of every petition by an affidavit made by the Petitioner or by one of the Petitioners, where there are more than one, and in case the petition is presented by a body corporate, by a director, secretary or other principal officer thereof. The proviso to Rule 21 enables the Judge or Registrar for sufficient reason to grant leave to any other person duly authorized by the Petitioner to make and file the affidavit. The deponent of such affidavit in the present case is not a director, secretary or other principal officer of the Petitioner, who is a body corporate, but an authorised person. When the Registrar permitted the deponent of the affidavit to make and file the affidavit, he obviously granted leave to the deponent within the meaning of the proviso. The question urged before the Court is whether the deponent was duly authorized by the Petitioner to make and file such affidavit, for in the absence of such authority, there is no power in the Court or the Registrar to grant any leave to make or file the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly Notaries defined under the Notaries Act, 1952. Delhi High Court in the case of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. M/s. World Science News and others AIR 1976 Delhi 263, Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Jabbar vs. IInd Addl. District Judge, Orai AIR 1980 Allahabad 369 and Calcutta High Court in the case of in Re K.K. Ray (Private) Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1967 Calcutta 636 (V 54 C 136) have held so. Even the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jugraj Singh vs. Jaswant Singh 1970 (2) Supreme Court Cases 386 suggests that a power of attorney executed before a Notary Public not covered by the Notaries Act, 1952 comes within the expression "Notary Public" under Section 85, though this case does not in terms deal with this question. 7. We also need to consider the effect of Section 57 of the Evidence Act, which requires the Court to take judicial notice of all seals of Notaries Public. Once again, these Notaries Public include Notaries operating in other countries as well and are not confined to Notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952. 8. Now the question is whether Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which is in the context of reciprocal arrangements for recognition of not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and outside India, came to hold that the provisions of Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, do not create any bar in recognizing the notarial acts of such countries, which are not declared as recognized by a notification of the Central Government. Even the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Jabbar's case (supra) held that Section 85 of the Evidence Act applies equally to documents authenticated by Notaries Public of other countries and there is no reason to import the provisions of Notaries Act for interpreting the provisions of the Evidence Act. Another judgment of Delhi High Court in La Chemise Lacosle vs. Crocodile Indl. Pte. Ltd. CS (OS) No.894/2001, holds that even though there might not be reciprocity between India and another country within the meaning of Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, acts of Notaries in that foreign country could be given legal recognition by courts and authorities in India. The notification under Section 14 of the Notaries Act, in other words, is not held to be mandatory. I am respectfully inclined to agree with these views of Delhi and Allahabad High Courts. 9. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Counsel for the Respondent, referred to the cases of Calcut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petition. The facts in that case are, thus, clearly distinguishable. 10. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Counsel for the Respondent, also submitted that unlike in the case of Re K.K. Ray Pvt. Ltd., where the Court in fact had material before it to find a factual reciprocity between notarial acts in US and India, there is no such factual material available in the present case. I am afraid I cannot accept this argument from the Respondent. It is, firstly, for the Respondent to aver that there is no such factual reciprocity. In the absence of such plea from the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be required to prove factual reciprocity. Secondly, I have held as a matter of law that Section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952 has no bearing on the construction to be put on Section 85 of the Evidence Act, in which case factual reciprocity of notarial acts is quite besides the point. 11. In the premises, I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Andhyarujina. As I have noticed above, apart from this legal contention, there is no other defence to the petition on merits. 12. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The Company Petition is admitted and made returnable on 20 February 2017; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
