In a winding up petition the 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 have been notarised by one Yang Yung Chong, whose seal indicates that he/she is a notary public of Singapore.

A question, therefore, arose as to whether the Court can recognize a notarial act which took place before a notary public at Singapore.

The Court observed that the answer to this question is clearly provided under section 14 of the Notaries Act, 1952.  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, the Court held that it is  unable to take any judicial recognition of the document which has been handed over before the Court by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.