Delhi High Court
Syndicate Bank vs Shri Mohinder Pal Singhal & Anr. on 3 December, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
R-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.63/1995
Date of decision: 03rd December, 2008
%
SYNDICATE BANK ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Sumati Anand, Adv.
versus
SHRI MOHINDER PAL SINGHAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant has succeeded on all material issues
which were settled between the parties being issue Nos.2 to 5
but having failed on issue No.1 has get no relief under issue
No.6.
2. Issue No.6 was „Relief‟.
3. Issue No.1 was whether the plaint has been signed and
verified and the suit has been filed by duly authorized
person?(OPP).
4. The appellant instituted the suit under the authority of
Sh. H.R. Issarani, the Manager as well as the Principal Officer
of the Bank. In support of his authorization Mr. Issarani relied
upon a power of attorney executed on 22nd November, 1988
by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank who acted under
Board Authorization. The said power of attorney was
executed before a Notary Public on the same day, i.e., 22 nd
November, 1988 and the Notary Public endorsed the same as
under: -
"Signed and execution admitted before me
at Banglore on 22nd day of November. 1988".
5. Learned Trial Judge has opined on the same by noting
that the original minute book containing the board resolution
was not produced; and in respect of the presumption under
Section 85 of the Evidence Act noting that there is no
authentication by the Notary it has been held that even
Section 85 of the Evidence Act does not come to the rescue of
the appellant.
6. Section 85 of the Evidence Act reads as under: -
"85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.-
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."
7. It is true that Section 85 uses both words „Execution‟ and
„Authenticated‟, but mere omission by the Notary public to
record authentication would not mean that a document
executed before the Notary Public on the same day as of its
execution would not attract Section 85 of the Evidence Act
merely because the Notary Public does not use the word
authenticated.
8. We find that the view taken by the Learned Trial Judge is
contrary to the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
decision reported as Jugraj Singh & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh &
Ors. AIR 1971 SC 761. We also have the decision reported as
United Bank of India vs. Naresh Kumar AIR 1997 SC 3 which
has taken a view that where the Manager of the Bank is
litigating on behalf of the Bank a presumption has to be raised
that the Manager of the Bank was duly authorized to act on
behalf of the Bank and would have the authority to institute
the suit as also sign and verify the pleadings.
9. The decision of the Learned Trial Judge is reversed on
issue No.1. It is held that the evidence on record establishes
the authority of Sh. H.R. Issarani to file the suit on behalf of
the Bank has also signed and verified the pleadings.
10. Since the Bank has won on all other issues; noting that
the contractual rate of interest was 4½% above the Reserved
Bank of India rate with a minimum of 13½% per annum;
noting that the during the pendency of the appeal the
borrowing and the lending rates varied, we pass a decree in
favour of the appellant and against the respondent in sum of
Rs.76,947.43 together with interest @ 13.5% per annum from
the date of the suit till realization.
11. The appellant shall be entitled to cost all throughout.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
J.R. MIDHA, J
DECEMBER 03, 2008
mk
