A question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court can recognize a notarial act which took place before a notary public at Singapore. This is required to be considered first, even before this Court can go into the genuineness or authenticity of the document. The answer to this question is clearly provided under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which reads as follows:
"14. Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notarial acts done by foreign notaries - If the Central Government is satisfied that by law or practice of any country or place outside India, the notarial acts done by notaries within India are recognized for all or any limited purposes in that country or place, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries within such country or place shall be recognized within India for all purposes, or as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification."
None of the judgments, which have been referred to or relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, takes into consideration or even dwells upon the above quoted provision of the Notaries Act, 1952, which is a Central Legislation that has come into force at a latter point of time - much after the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. Now, so far as section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it 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 Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated. However, it must be held that to the extent it dwells upon presumption as to powers of attorney, executed and authenticated by a Notary Public, the provision of section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be read in isolation to the specific provision as contained under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, insofar as notarial acts done by foreign notaries are concerned. For an Indian Court to recognise a notarial act done by a notary public at Singapore, it is imperative for the Central Government to issue a notification under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952, declaring that the notarial acts lawfully done by notaries in Singapore shall be recognised within India for all purposes, or as the case may be, for such limited purposes as may be specified in the notification. In other words, unilateral recognition by an Indian Court of a notarial act done by a foreign notary is impermissible in the absence of reciprocity of recognition as contemplated under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The reason is, if it is otherwise, the sanctity of the sovereign power being exercised by an Indian Court will be compromised.
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 HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided On: 12.02.2015
Appellants: In Re: Rei Agro Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Biswanath Somadder , J.
Citation: AIR2015Cal54, (2015)1CALLT613(HC)
