When the Signature Becomes the Case: Delhi High Court on Proof of Contract, Defective Notarisation and the Limits of Section 34 of Arbitration Act

In arbitration, a claim founded on a disputed contract cannot survive unless the contract itself is first proved. The Delhi High Court’s decision in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. reaffirms that principle with clarity and commercial realism.

Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.03.2026, is an important ruling on contract formation, proof of execution, arbitral jurisdiction and the narrow limits of challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment underscores a basic but often neglected truth of commercial litigation: where the very agreement containing the arbitration clause is not proved to have been executed, the arbitral claim may fail at the threshold itself.

Print Page

Drafts, Doubt and Defective Notarisation: The Fall of an Arbitral Claim

 The arbitrator held that the CA was not executed between the parties and signatures thereupon of Mr. M.G. Stephen were forged. It was considered that: (a) the parties to the agreement belonged to Bihar and Mumbai, whereas the CA was notarised in Faridabad; (b) the Managing Director of the petitioner while deposing as CW-1 admitted that none of the parties had business place in Faridabad and no negotiation took place there; (c) the CA was notarised by Mr. Vinay Kumbta who as per the testimony of CW-1 was a business partner residing in Faridabad but in cross-examination it was stated that he was an employee and had only the role of accessing emails received; (d) the license of the notary notarising the CA had expired; (e) the petitioner failed to examine the witnesses to the CA or the notary; and (f) by email dated 15.07.2014 that is eight days after the date on which the petitioner claimed execution of the CA, a draft of the agreement was circulated. {Para 8}

Ratio: 

Where execution of the contract containing the arbitration clause is specifically denied, the party relying on the contract bears the initial burden of proving execution; defective notarisation, including notarisation by a notary with an expired licence, may not by itself void the contract but can substantially weaken the evidentiary value of the document; and where the arbitrator’s finding that execution is not proved is a plausible one on the record, the award is not liable to be set aside under Section 34.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

O.M.P. (Comm) 463/2023

Decided On: 11.03.2026

Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt Ltd. Vs. Pravin Electricals Pvt Ltd

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/1679/2026

Print Page

Whether Notaries/Oath Commissioners are Authorized To Execute Marriage/Divorce Documents?

Not only the accused persons who have conspired in

performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents.

Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage

agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE

(SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE Mr . JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

M.Cr.C. No. 44184 of 2020

(Mukesh S/o. Mr Lakshman @ Lakshminarayan. V/s. The state of

M.P.)

Date : 31.12.2020 :

Print Page

Whether Notary Who Acts Contrary To Procedure Under Notaries Act Can Claim Immunity From Prosecution?

I therefore, hold that only when the notary has exercised or

purported to exercise his functions under the Notaries Act, 1952, he can hide behind Section 13 of the Act.

13.Coming to the facts on hand, there is nothing on record

to show that the document in question which was notarised by

the petitioner was also duly notified by him in the notarial

register. The petitioner does not appear to have produced his

notarial register before the investigation officer. Even before me

it was not produced. The petitioner had not demonstrated that

the document in question finds mention in the said register. If

that had been done, I could have come to the conclusion that the

petitioner had acted in a bona fide manner and that the principal

accused had pulled wool over the eyes of the petitioner. In this

case, there is nothing on record to show that the act of the

petitioner fell within the four corners of the statutory frame

work. The Notary must tread on the path laid down by the Act. If during the course of such treading some mishap occurs, the

statute is there to protect him against vexatious prosecution. If

the Notary abandons the statutory path and undertakes an

independent journey, he has to take the consequences and

cannot invoke Section 13 of the Act. In this regard, I may refer

to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in

(2010) 114 DRJ 343 (Gian Singh v. State). The learned Judge

declined to grant relief in a similar quash petition because there

was no entry of the document involved in that case in the

notarial register. Section 13 will not come to the rescue of those

notaries who exercise their function de hors the procedure set

out in the statute and the rules framed thereunder.

14.In this view of the matter, I dismiss this criminal

original petition as devoid of merits.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09.03.2020

CORAM :

 MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Crl OP(MD)No.2669 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.1396 and 1399 of 2020

Ganapathyvaratha Subramanian Vs.The State 

Print Page

What are necessary pre-requisite for taking cognizance of offence against Notary?

Section 13(1) of the Notary Act, 1952 clearly bars the act of taking cognizance of any offence against the Notary in exercise or purported exercise of his function under the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by Central Government or State Government by general or special order. Therefore, filing of a complaint against a Notary of his function performed under the Act by upon an authorization of an officer of Central/State Government is mandatory requirement of law for institution of valid complaint as per provision under Section 13(1) is mandatory in nature.

12. At this stage, it would be expedient to notice the functions entrusted to the Notary under the Act of 1952. Section 8(1)(a) of the Act provides as under:-

8. Functions of notaries.- (1) A notary may do all or any of the following acts by virtue of his office, namely:-

(a) verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument;

(b) to (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx

13. Reverting to the facts of present case in the light of principle of law laid down in the above-stated Judgments and in view of above-stated legal analysis, it is quite vivid that in the present case the accused/petitioner is an advocate working as a Notary and authenticated the document in question under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1952 in performance of statutory duty conferred upon him by Act of 1952. The questioned authentication of agreement would clearly fall within the meaning of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act of 1952. Therefore, the bar under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1952 would squarely attract and far alleged offences against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of, except on the complaint filed in the manner indicated under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1952.

14. The Karnataka High Court in the matters of V. Ranga Ramu vs. State of Karnataka MANU/KA/0143/1999 : 1999 CRI. L.J. 561 and Allahabad High Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra Sinha v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0353/2017 : 2017 CRI. L.J. 3015 has held that in absence of any complaint by the Officer authorised by Central Government or State Government regarding the duty of notary, the order taking cognizance is not proper and accused is entitled for discharge.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 294 of 2017

Decided On: 13.05.2019

 Rajkumar Mishra Vs. Gurjeet Kaur Bajwa

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: 2019 SCC Online Chh 48

Print Page

Whether principal can ratify previous act done by agent by executing second power of attorney?

That an act done, for another, by a person though without any precedent authority whatever, becomes the act of the principal, subsequently ratified by him, is the known and well-established rule of law. In that case the principal is bound by the act, whether it be for the detriment or his advantage, and whether it be founded on a tort or on a contract, to the same effect as by, and with all the consequences which follow from, the same act done by his previous authority. And so by a wholesome and convenient fiction, a person ratifying the act of another, who, without authority, has made a contract openly and avowedly on his behalf, is deemed to be, in fact he was not, a party to the contract.

Relation back of an act of ratification was expressly accepted in this case. Other cases have been summarised in the manual of the Law and Practice of Powers of Attorney issued by the Council of the Chartered Institute of Secretaries; This follows from the maxim of law "Canis ratihabitio retrotrahitur at mandate priori aequiparatur"--that is to say, ratification is thrown back to the date of the act done, and the agent is put in the same position as if he had authority to do the act at the time the act was done by him. The learned authors quote the case of the House of Lords which we have above cited and add to it certain other cases with which we do not consider necessary to encumber this judgment.

9. It therefore follows that the second power of attorney was a valid document and it authorised Mr. Chawla to execute the document as well as to present it for registration. This being a document ratifying a former inconclusive act related back to the time when the first document was made and cured the illegality in the presentation for registration which had taken place.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1967

Decided On: 16.03.1970

Jugraj Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hidayatullah, C.J., A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua, JJ.

Citation: UJ 1971 (SC) 197

Print Page

When court should not rely on notarized documents?

The procedure relating to notarization under the Notaries Rules, 1956 framed under the Notaries Act, 1952 has not been followed. Under Rule 11(2), the notary is required to maintain a notarial register in prescribed form No. XV. The form shows 11 columns, including the column of the Serial number, Date, Name of the Notarial act, Name of the executant, Contents of documents, Notarial fee, Signatures of the executant and the Notary. The purpose of this rule is to relate each notarized document to the serial number in the notarial register required to be maintained by each notary in the prescribed form. Hence the serial number of the entry must be put on the document to collate the entry with the document. In case of dispute the factum of notarization would have to be separately proved by the applicant since, unlike registration, there is no presumption of execution of a notarized document. It is seen that in this case the notary has not shown the serial number and the register number in which the entry is made. It would be for the applicant to prove the notarization in view of the dispute. The applicant has not got produced the relevant notarial register of the notary, kept in the normal course of his conduct as such notary, to prove the execution of the document before him. The document being otherwise unregistered and inadmissible in evidence is, therefore, not even prima facie shown to be notarized.

6. In the case of Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta v. Jayant Nemchand Shah and Anr. MANU/MH/0030/1992 : AIR1992Bom149 , this Court considered, inter alia, the essence of notarization of documents by persons identified before notary and the prescribed rules, more specially Rule 11 required to be followed for every notarial act. That was a case of reliance upon a copy of a document certified as true copy by the notary. That notarial act remained unregistered. The mere fact that the document was notarized was held not to lend any authenticity to the document in the absence of seeing the notarial register kept by the notary in the course of his conduct as a notary as per Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules. Evidence was led in that case. The notary was summoned. The relevant notarial register was produced. No entry was found in the notarial register relating to the transaction claimed to have taken place under the copy document notarized as true copy. The notary deposed that the executant was not before him. He had not made any entry in the notarial register as, according to him, that was not required. He was only required to verify the document, compare the document and endorse it as true copy if it was the identical copy of the original. It was observed thus:

Law takes judicial notice of seal of a notary. In ordinary course, an initial presumption may be made about genuineness of the notarised copy of the document. The underlying idea behind such presumption is that the notary is normally a responsible member of the legal profession and he is expected to take due care to satisfy himself about the identity of the party appearing before him. If the party appearing before the notary is not known to the notary, the notary must get the party identified by an Advocate known to him and take signature of both of them in token thereof.

The contents of Rule 11, its purpose and object as well as the consequences of non-compliance of the rules have also been considered in Para-11 of that judgment. Reference has been made specially to Rule 11(2) of the rules which provides that every notary shall maintain notarial register in prescribed form No. XV and the register requires entry of every notarial act in the notarial register and taking of signature of the person concerned in the register. It is observed that negligence of the notary in the discharge of his notarial functions may jeopardise the interest of third parties and public interest itself. Upon seeing that the notarial register did not disclose the notarial entry relating to the notarized document produced before the Court, it was held that no evidentiary value whatsoever could be attached to such a document.

7. It may be mentioned that that was a case of only a certification of copy of a document as a true copy. Our case goes much further. It is the case of the execution of the original document itself. The executant is required to be present before the notary. He is required to be identified before the notary. He is required to sign before the notary. The notary is required to witness such an act and register the transaction. Keeping in mind that the document relied upon by the applicant herein is not registered and hence is inadmissible in evidence, even the factum of the execution of the document is not even prima facie shown by the applicant upon proving the notarial act. It is for the applicant to make out his case. The prima facie case of proof of the execution of the document on a given date by the executant before the notary can be evidenced by the production of the true or certified copy of the relevant portion of the notarial register showing that the entry was made on the relevant date in the normal course of the conduct of the notary. The applicant has undertaken no exercise to substantiate his case of the execution of the document otherwise completely inadmissible in evidence. Since even the notarial act is not shown even a prima facie case cannot be made out.

8. In the case of J.G. Hegde v. R.D. Shukla MANU/MH/0786/2003 : AIR2004Bom55 , this Court once again considered the notarized writing which was styled as "Affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond". The relevant notarial register got produced by the Court did not reveal the required entry. The purpose of Rule 11(2) of the Notaries Rules requiring every notarial act to be serially numbered in the register to be maintained by the notary was considered. The dual purpose served by such a practice was set out. It was observed that one was to identify every document with reference to the serial number and the other was to prevent execution of anti-dated documents by inserting an entry in between two successive entries which are serially numbered.

The documents which are notarized do not even show the serial number or the register number under which they are registered and entered. Nevertheless, the notary, if called upon by the executant to prove the notarization, would be bound to produce the relevant register of the relevant date. Only the production of such a register would show whether or not the document was indeed notarized on the date it is stated to be executed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Notice of Motion No. of 2008 in Suit No. 1094 of 2007

Decided On: 17.12.2008

H.K. Taneja and Ors.  Vs. Bipin Ganatra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Dalvi, J.

Citation: (2009) 2 Mh.L.J. 855.

Print Page

What is presumption regarding power of attorney executed before notary?

Document No. 2 is the original power of attorney tendered in evidence along with affidavit of evidence. The said power of attorney appears to have been executed on behalf of the complainant company by its director Ashwin Sheth. The affidavit appears to have been sworn in before and has been notarized by the Notary Public. Section 85 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Counsel or Vice Counsel or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated. Section 4 of the Evidence Act provides that whenever it is directed by the Evidence Act that the Court shall presume a fact, as it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. In view of Section 85 read with Section 4 of the Evidence Act, the power of attorney purporting to have been executed and authenticated before the Notary Public shall be presumed to have been executed and so authenticated unless and until it is disproved. Therefore, the burden lies on the accused to establish that the said power of attorney was not duly executed and authenticated by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. In view of this legal position, no objection could be taken to the admission and exhibition of the original power of attorney.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2011

Decided On: 16.03.2011

Ashish C. Shah Vs. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd., 

Print Page

How to prove execution of Notarized document?

The Agreement of licence is not registered as required. It cannot be looked into. Mr. Madon argued that it is notarized. It may be mentioned that notarization is not an additional qualification to give the unregistered document any extra worth. Be that as it may, even the notarization is not done as required. It does not show the number of notarial register of the notary as per the required rules. Its execution cannot even be verified and the applicant has taken no pains to get it verified.

5. The procedure relating to notarization under the Notaries Rules, 1956 framed under the Notaries Act, 1952 has not been followed. Under Rule 11(2), the notary is required to maintain a notarial register in prescribed form No. XV. The form shows 11 columns, including the column of the Serial number, Date, Name of the Notarial act, Name of the executant, Contents of documents, Notarial fee, Signatures of the executant and the Notary. The purpose of this rule is to relate each notarized document to the serial number in the notarial register required to be maintained by each notary in the prescribed form. Hence the serial number of the entry must be put on the document to collate the entry with the document. In case of dispute the factum of notarization would have to be separately proved by the applicant since, unlike registration, there is no presumption of execution of a notarized document. It is seen that in this case the notary has not shown the serial number and the register number in which the entry is made. It would be for the applicant to prove the notarization in view of the dispute. The applicant has not got produced the relevant notarial register of the notary, kept in the normal course of his conduct as such notary, to prove the execution of the document before him. The document being otherwise unregistered and inadmissible in evidence is, therefore, not even prima facie shown to be notarized.

6. In the case of Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta v. Jayant Nemchand Shah and Anr. MANU/MH/0030/1992 : AIR1992Bom149 , this Court considered, inter alia, the essence of notarization of documents by persons identified before notary and the prescribed rules, more specially Rule 11 required to be followed for every notarial act. That was a case of reliance upon a copy of a document certified as true copy by the notary. That notarial act remained unregistered. The mere fact that the document was notarized was held not to lend any authenticity to the document in the absence of seeing the notarial register kept by the notary in the course of his conduct as a notary as per Rule 11 of the Notaries Rules. Evidence was led in that case. The notary was summoned. The relevant notarial register was produced. No entry was found in the notarial register relating to the transaction claimed to have taken place under the copy document notarized as true copy. The notary deposed that the executant was not before him. He had not made any entry in the notarial register as, according to him, that was not required. He was only required to verify the document, compare the document and endorse it as true copy if it was the identical copy of the original. It was observed thus:

Law takes judicial notice of seal of a notary. In ordinary course, an initial presumption may be made about genuineness of the notarised copy of the document. The underlying idea behind such presumption is that the notary is normally a responsible member of the legal profession and he is expected to take due care to satisfy himself about the identity of the party appearing before him. If the party appearing before the notary is not known to the notary, the notary must get the party identified by an Advocate known to him and take signature of both of them in token thereof.

The contents of Rule 11, its purpose and object as well as the consequences of non-compliance of the rules have also been considered in Para-11 of that judgment. Reference has been made specially to Rule 11(2) of the rules which provides that every notary shall maintain notarial register in prescribed form No. XV and the register requires entry of every notarial act in the notarial register and taking of signature of the person concerned in the register. It is observed that negligence of the notary in the discharge of his notarial functions may jeopardise the interest of third parties and public interest itself. Upon seeing that the notarial register did not disclose the notarial entry relating to the notarized document produced before the Court, it was held that no evidentiary value whatsoever could be attached to such a document.

7. It may be mentioned that that was a case of only a certification of copy of a document as a true copy. Our case goes much further. It is the case of the execution of the original document itself. The executant is required to be present before the notary. He is required to be identified before the notary. He is required to sign before the notary. The notary is required to witness such an act and register the transaction. Keeping in mind that the document relied upon by the applicant herein is not registered and hence is inadmissible in evidence, even the factum of the execution of the document is not even prima facie shown by the applicant upon proving the notarial act. It is for the applicant to make out his case. The prima facie case of proof of the execution of the document on a given date by the executant before the notary can be evidenced by the production of the true or certified copy of the relevant portion of the notarial register showing that the entry was made on the relevant date in the normal course of the conduct of the notary. The applicant has undertaken no exercise to substantiate his case of the execution of the document otherwise completely inadmissible in evidence. Since even the notarial act is not shown even a prima facie case cannot be made out.

8. In the case of J.G. Hegde v. R.D. Shukla MANU/MH/0786/2003 : AIR2004Bom55 , this Court once again considered the notarized writing which was styled as "Affidavit-cum-Indemnity Bond". The relevant notarial register got produced by the Court did not reveal the required entry. The purpose of Rule 11(2) of the Notaries Rules requiring every notarial act to be serially numbered in the register to be maintained by the notary was considered. The dual purpose served by such a practice was set out. It was observed that one was to identify every document with reference to the serial number and the other was to prevent execution of anti-dated documents by inserting an entry in between two successive entries which are serially numbered.

The documents which are notarized do not even show the serial number or the register number under which they are registered and entered. Nevertheless, the notary, if called upon by the executant to prove the notarization, would be bound to produce the relevant register of the relevant date. Only the production of such a register would show whether or not the document was indeed notarized on the date it is stated to be executed.

9. There have been numerous cases of anti-dated documents shown to be notarized other than the one that came up before the Court in the aforesaid two cases. Hence it cannot be put past any executant to produce the document shown to be notarized on a given date without substantiating that fact through the mandatorily required statutory procedure. No document thrown in the face of the Court as notarized document can, therefore, prevail without the accompanying notarial registration of entry. Of course, even if that is shown, the fact that the document has remained unregistered when it creates an interest in an immovable property would remain to be admissible in evidence. But at-least the Court could be satisfied prima facie about its execution. The document produced by the applicant without showing compliance of the Notaries Act and Rules bears no worth and deserves to be fully rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Notice of Motion No. of 2008 in Suit No. 1094 of 2007

Decided On: 17.12.2008

H.K. Taneja and Ors. and Keshavrao J. Bhosle  Vs.  Bipin Ganatra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Dalvi, J.

Equivalent Citation : 2009 (2)MhLj 855

Print Page

Whether action can be taken against Notary for misconduct without following principles of natural justice?

 On the other hand, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents fairly accepts that the
procedure in terms of Rule 13 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 has not been
followed, but, however, submits that the respondents are entitled to
justify the allegations against the petitioner in the proceedings initiated
by the respondent No.1 based on the inspections which have been
carried out.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
Counsel and we have also gone the through the record. Rule 13 of the
Notaries Rules, 1956 reads thus :
“ 13. Inquiry into the allegations of
professional or other misconduct of a notary.- (1)
An inquiry into the misconduct of a notary may be
initiated either suo motu by the appropriate government or
on a complaint received in Form XIII.
 (2) Every such complaint shall contain the following
particulars, namely,-
 (a) the acts and omissions which, if proved, would render
 the person complained against unfit to be a notary;
 (b) the oral or documentary evidence relied upon in support
 of the allegations made in the complaint.
 (3) The appropriate government, shall return a complaint
which is not in the proper form or which does not contain the
aforesaid particulars to the complainant for representation
after compliance with such objections and within such time
as the appropriate government may specify:
Provided that if the subject matter in a complaint is, in
the opinion of the said government substantially the same as or
covered by, any previous complaint and if there is no additional
ground, the said government shall file the said complaint 
without any further action and inform the complainant
accordingly.
 (4) Within sixty days ordinarily of the receipt of complaint,
the appropriate government shall send a copy thereof to the
notary at his address as entered in the Register of Notaries.
 (4-a) Where an inquiry is initiated, suo motu by the
appropriate government, the appropriate government shall send
to the notary a statement specifying the charge or charges
against him, together with particulars of the oral or
documentary evidence relied upon in support of such charge or
charges.
(5) A notary against whom an inquiry has been initiated
may, within fourteen days of the service on him of a copy of the
complaint under sub-rule (4) or of the statement of the charges
under sub-rule (4a), as the case may be, or within such time as
may be extended by the appropriate government, forward to
that government a written statement in his defence verified in
the same manner as a pleading in a civil court.
(6) If on a perusal of the written statement, if any, of the
notary concerned and other relevant documents and papers,
the appropriate Government considers that there is a prima
facie case against such notary, the appropriate Government shall
cause an inquiry to be made in the matter by the competent
authority. If the appropriate government is of the opinion that
there is no prima facie case against the notary concerned, the
complaint or charge shall be filed and the complainant and
the notary concerned shall be informed accordingly.
 [(7) Every notice issued to a notary under this rule shall be
sent to him by registered post. If any such notice is returned
unserved with an endorsement indicating that the addressee
has refused to accept the notice or the notice is not returned
unserved within a period of thirty days from the date of its
dispatch, the notice shall be deemed to have been duly served
upon the notary.]
 (8) It shall be the duty of the appropriate Government to
place before the competent authority all facts brought to its
knowledge which are relevant for the purpose of an inquiry
by the competent authority.
 (9) A notary who is proceeded against shall have right to
defend himself before the competent authority either in
person or through a legal practitioner or any other notary.
(10) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, the
competent authority shall have the power to regulate his
procedure relating to the inquiry in such manner as he considers
necessary and during the course of inquiry, may examine
witnesses and receive any other oral or documentary evidence.
(11) The competent authority shall submit his report to the
government entrusting him with the inquiry. 
(12)(a) The appropriate government shall consider the
report of the competent authority, and if in its opinion a further
inquiry is necessary may cause such further inquiry to be made
and a further report submitted by the competent authority.
 (b) If, after considering the report of the competent
authority, the appropriate government is of the opinion that
action should be taken against the notary the appropriate
government may make an order-
(i) cancelling the certificate of practice and
 perpetually debarring the notary from practice; or
(ii) suspending him from practice for a specified period;
 or
(iii) letting him off with a warning, according to the
 nature and gravity of the misconduct of the notary
 proved”
On plain reading of the said Rule, we find that the procedure
contemplated therein has not been followed by the respondent No.1
whilst proceeding to pass the impugned order. The impugned order, as
such, stands vitiated for gross breach of the principles of natural
justice as, admittedly, no inquiry was conducted, nor any opportunity
given to the petitioner to present his case, in accordance with the Rules.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 1010/2015
Shri Gajanan Govind Dhumatker,

V/s.
 State of Goa, by Chief Secretary,

 CORAM :- F.M. REIS &
 NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.
 Date : - 05/04/2016.
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR346

Print Page

Whether Indian courts should recognize certificate of civil status is issued by Swiss Confederation to prove bride marital status?

 Ext.P5 certificate of civil status is issued by the

Swiss Confederation, to prove the bride marital status,


attested by a notary in terms of Hague Convention,

abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public

documents (Apostille Convention).        India has declared its

accession to above Convention on 05/10/1961.                The

Switzerland has not objected to accession of India as

Contracting State under article 12 of the Convention. Thus,

the Indian Court and the Public Authorities are bound to

recognise such certification of the notaries of the foreign

country.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

 Dated:  27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

                                  WP(C).No. 35928 of 2015 (M)
                                      

            ABDUL MANAF.P.A.,
Vs

        STATE OF KERALA,
           

Print Page

When court can take cognizance of offence committed by notary?

The learned Counsel also brought to my notice that under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 there is a legal bar for the Court to take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary. The said provision reads thus :

"13. Cgnizance of offence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. (2) No Magistrate other than a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act".

On perusal of the above said provision, if the allegation is made against a Notary that while executing the functions of a Notary or purported exercise of the functions under the Act, if any offence is committed no Court shall take cognizance unless a complaint in writing made by an Officer authorised by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Therefore, the above said provision is also a legal and specific bar to take cognizance of the offence. The charge sheet allegations is that, the accused No.3 - the petitioner has notarized the said General Power of Attorney. Except the said allegations nothing has been stated how she has taken part in cheating the complainant or any other person.

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Ratna Gouda D/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2014

Author: K.N.Phaneendra

Citation;2014 (3) crimes 535 karnataka

Print Page

THE IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICAL PRESENCE TO THE NOTARY

The notary public who wishes never to be sued in civil, criminal or administrative court
might adopt as a motto the title of that most celebrated of legal writs: habeas corpus.1
“You have the body” would be an apt imperative for any cautious and conscientious
notary intent both on deterring fraud and staying out of court. The “body,” of course,
would be that of the signer of any document presented for notarization, for it is the
frequent failure of notaries to ensure the signer’s physical presence before them at the
time and place of the notarial act that has been a major cause of their legal problems in
recent decades.
Knowing their purpose is to detect and deter fraud, most notaries are well prepared for the
threat posed by impostors with false identification documents. They are on high alert
when a stranger approaches, requests a notarial act and presents a driver’s license or other
identification to prove identity.
However, their guard is down when it is a friend, relative, associate, client or supervisor

Print Page

Whether the principal can ratify the first power of attorney by executing the second power of attorney authenticated adequately by Notary public?

The first power of attorney was not authenticated as required by s; 33 of the Indian Registration Act which in the case of an Indian residing abroad,requires that the document should be authenticated by a Notary Public. The document only bore the signature of a witness without anything to show that he was a Notary Public. In any event there was no authentication by the Notary Public (if he was one) in the manner which the law would consider adequate. The second power of attorney however did show that it was executed before a proper Notary Public who complied with the laws of California and authenticated the document as required by that law, and was also duly authenticated in accordance with our laws. The only complaint was that the Notary Public did not say in his endorsement that V had been identified to his satisfaction. But that flows from the fact that he endorsed on the document that it had been subscribed and sworn before him. There is a presumption of regularity of official acts and he must have satisfied himself in the discharge of his duties that the person who was executing it was the proper person. This made the second power of attorney valid and effective both under s. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act and s. 33 of the Indian Registration Act. 

The second power of attorney was a valid document and it authorised S to execute the document as well as to present it for registration. This being a document ratifying a former inconclusive act related back to the time when the first document was made and cured the illegality in the presentation for registration which had taken place.

Now the law is quite clear that ratification relates back to the original act provided there is a disclosed principal. 

Supreme Court of India

Jugraj Singh & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Ors on 16 March, 1970

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Hidayatullah, C.J., A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua, JJ.

Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 761, 1971 SCR (1) 38,MANU/SC/0413/1970

Print Page

BOMBAY HIGH COURT GUIDELINES REGARDING SWEARING OF AFFIDAVIT

In this view of the matter,

 the Registrar  General  is   directed  to   issue

 administrative instructions to all the  concerned

 oath  officers  working in this Court and also  to

 all the  Districts  and Sessions Courts  and  the

 Courts  working thereunder at taluka places not to

 administer oath or to accept one or two page bare

 affidavit unless  the  same  is in  the  form  of

 affirmation at the foot of petition or application

 or accompanied with the petition or application in

 support of  which  it is  affirmed; with  further

 direction to  see that each and every page  bears

 seal and signature or initial of the oath officer.

 It  is also necessary to issue  directions

 to the State of Maharashtra and all the  District

 Judges to  issue necessary directions to all  the

 Notaries  as  indicated   hereinabove  since  the

 Notaries are  expected to work and operate  under

 the supervision of the State Government as well as

 respective   District    Judges    under    whose

 jurisdiction they are practising as Notary Public.

 The District  Judges  are also expected  to  keep

 supervision on their working as per the provisions

 of the Notaries Act, 1952.  At the same time,  all

 the District Judges are expected to appraise  all

 the Notary Public practising in their jurisdiction

 to  follow  these  directions,  if  necessary,  by

 issuing administrative circular in this behalf.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 742/2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.822/ 2004

  Shri Sadashiv Shankar Bhise. V/s. State of Maharashtra.

DECIDED ON:13DECEMBER 2005

CORUM;V C DAGA

Print Page

Whether power of attorney executed before notary foreign country is presumed to be authentic?

 The authentication bears not only the seal but also signatures of the Notary Public. S. 85 of the Evidence Act provides as under :

"85.The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) Consul or Vice Consul, or representative of the (Central Government). was so executed and authenticated."

(10) The document in the present case is a power of attorney and again on the face of it shows to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public. In view of Section 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. Once the original document is produced purporting to be a power of attornney so executed and attested, as stated in S. 85 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to presume that it was so executed and authenticated. The provision is mandatory, and it is open to the Court to presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper execution of the power of attorney have been duly fulfillled. There is no dobt that the section is not exhaustive and there are different legal modes of executing a power of attorney, but, once the power of attorney on its face shows to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a notary public, the Court has to so presume that it was so executed and authenticated. The authentication by a Notary Public of a document, purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before him is to be treated as the equivalent of an affidavit of identity. The object of the section is to avoid the necessity of such affidavit of identity. Under Section 57 sub-section (6) of the Evidence Act, the Courts have to taken judicial notice of the seals of Notaries Public and when the seal is there, of which judicial notice is taken, there is no reason why judicial notice should not be taken of the signatures as well". What is argued by Shri Rameshwar Dial, learned counsel for defendants I to 3, is that the Notary Public in Section 85 or Section 57 of the Evidence Act merely means notaries appointed under the Notaries Act 1952. The argument is that where a document purports to be a power of attorney, before the Court can presume it to be so executed and authenticated as is contemplated by S. 85, it should have been authenticated by Indian Consul or Vice-Consul or the representative of the Central Government and not by a notary public of a foreign country. For one thing Notaries Act 1952 was not there when Evidence Act which was the first Act of 1872 was enacted. Secondly, the purpose of Sections 57 and 85 is to cut down recording of evidence. For such matters, like the due execution of a power of attorney in the present day of international commerce, there is no reason to limit the word "Notary Public" in S. 85 or Section 57 to Notaries appointed in India. The fact that notaries public of foreign countries have been recognised as proper authorities for due execution and authentication for purpose of section 85 of the Evidence Act is illustrated by the Supreme Court in case Jugraj Singh and anr. v. Jaswant Singh and or s. . In this case the Supreme Court held that a power of attorney executed and authenticated before a notary public of California satisfied the test of S. 85 of the Evidence Act and S. 33 of the Indian Registration Act. If the interpretation of notary public is limited to notaries public appointed in this country only, it will become impossible to carry on commerce with foreign countries. Surely, S. 57 of the Indian Evidence Act which enjoins upon the Courts to take judicial notice of seals of Notary Public, such judicial notice cannot be limited to Notaries appointed in India only It seems clear if the entire sub-section is read. Once, this conclusion is reached, there is no reason to limit the meaning of the expression "Notaries Public" in S. 85 of the Indian Evidence Act to Notaries appointed in India only.

Delhi High Court

National And Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs World Science News And Ors. on 27 January, 1976

Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 Delhi 263, 12 (1976) DLT 69, ILR 1976 Delhi 559

Print Page

What are duties of notary in respect of certifying copies of documents as true copies of original?

 Rule 10(1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 prescribes that every notary shall charge a fees for certifying copies of documents as true copies of the original at the rate prescribed therein. Rule 11(9) of the said Rules provides that every notary shall grant a receipt for the fees and charges realised by him and maintain a register showing all the fees and charges realised for every single notarial act. Rule 12 of the said Rules prescribes for use of seal of notary. Rule 11(2) of the said Rules in terms provides that every notary shall maintain notarial register in prescribed Form No. 15. The prescribed form of the register provides for entry of every notarial act in the notarial register and taking of signature of the person concerned in the register and entry in respect of fees charged. It is, therefore, not correct to state, as stated by Mr. Sonavane, that no entry need be made in the notarial register in respect of the notarial act of certifying copy of document as true copy of the original. Even if one or two column of the said form is not applicable, entries must be made in the said register filling up remaining columns as are applicable and adapting the format accordingly. It is the responsibility of a notary to satisfy himself that the original document intended to be executed before him was executed by the person concerned and not by someone else in the name of a different person. It is the responsibility of the notary to satisfy himself about the identity of the execution of the original document by making all reasonable inquiries including insistence of identification of a member of the public by a legal practitioner known to the notary. Unless the executant is known to the notary personally, the notary must insist on written identification of the executant by an advocate in order to minimise the possibility of cheating by personification. Negligence of a notary in the discharge of his notarial functions may jeopardise the interest of third parties and public interest itself. If the work of comparison of copy of the document with the original and the prima facie scrutiny of authenticating the original involves labour for too little a fee, the person concerned need not opt to become a notary.

Bombay High Court

Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs Jayant Nemchand Shah And Another on 14 June, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 Bom 149, 1991 (4) BomCR 89

Bench: D Dhanuka

Print Page

Whether affidavits sworn before Notaries can be accepted as evidence before court?

The provisions of Civil Manual, Chapter XXVI,
para 506 read thus -
506. The person who may administer
oaths to deponents must be duly
authorised under Section 139 of the Civil
Procedure Code to do so.
It would thus mean that the persons who may
administer oath to the deponents are to be the persons
who are authorized under Section 139 of C.P.C. to do
so. Therefore, the result is obvious that the Notaries
are authorized to administer oath to the deponents.11
The affidavits which are to be under the Code, can be
sworn by on administering the oath to the deponents
by any Notary appointed under the Notaries Act and
under Order 18, Rule 4 of the C.P.C., there is no bar
requiring to exclude the affidavits sworn before the
Notaries for taking them on record as an examination
in chief. Thus, such affidavits sworn before Notaries
can be accepted as evidence by the Civil Court. The
cumulative sequel would render the impugned order to
be incorrect and illegal at law. As such liable to be
quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5388/2008

Prashant Vs. Muncipal Council Bhadravati

Coram : Dongaokar
Dated: : 2nd APRIL, 2009.
Citation: AIR 2009 BOM 144

Print Page