- (1.) On 27th January, 2015, when the petitioners prayed for leave under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, the learned senior counsel representing the company objected to such leave being granted by this Court. After hearing the parties and upon considering the law on the issue, this Court delivered a judgment, the operative portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow :- "As such, the deponents are directed to satisfy this Court that they were "duly authorised" by the petitioning creditors to make and file the affidavit verifying the instant winding-up petition, by producing valid resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of the petitioning-creditors supported by powers of attorney given in their favour by the petitioning-creditors. Let such documents be produced before this Court on 29th January, 2015."
(2.) Consequently, the matter is again taken up for consideration for such purpose, as stated above.
(3.) The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners produces a document which purports to be a power of attorney issued by UBS AG dated 5th November, 2014, signed by two persons, namely, Celine Teo and Pram Kurniawan, described as Executive Directors. The power of attorney appears to have been notarised by one Yang Yung Chong, whose seal indicates that he/she is a notary public of Singapore. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners also refers to an endorsement in the document made by the Consular Section of the High Commission of India, Singapore, and the signature of one Asha Upreti, whose seal describes her as the Assistant Consular Officer in the High Commission of India at Singapore, both of which appear in the top sheet of the document. He submits that the power of attorney has been duly authenticated by the concerned officer of the High Commission of India, which is clear from the endorsement made by the office of the Indian High Commission at Singapore. He also refers to the provisions of section 85 and sub-section (6) of section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and submits that the Court shall, in such circumstances, presume the authenticity of the said document, which was notarized in Singapore. In this context, he relies on several decisions, which are as follows :- 1) National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. M/s. World Science News and others, 1976 AIR(Del) 263 2) Citibank N. A., New Delhi v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Co. Ltd., Kanpur, 1982 AIR(Del) 487 3) M/s. Rudnap Export-Import v. Eastern Associates Co. and others, 1984 AIR(Del) 20 4) Jugraj Singh and another v. Jaswant Singh and others, 1970 2 SCC 386;