Parvez holds a Green Card, enabling him to reside in US. He has resided in US since 1985. Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla allegedly forged and fabricated the Power of Attorney of Shalin Lokhandawalla. An FIR was registered in 2014. However, between 10.03.2015 and 10.01.2020, Parvez travelled between US and India on 16 occasions. There is no reason or justification to deny him permission, which has been sought, to travel to US for 8 weeks, subject to terms imposed.

– Hon’ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2020].

It is settled, a Power of Attorney holder can only depose about facts within his personal knowledge and not about those facts which are not within his knowledge or are within the personal knowledge of the person who he represents or about the facts that may have transpired much before he entered the scene.

– Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal, Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, [Civil Appeal No. 9642 of 2010] decided on 10.04.2024.

_____

Court in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790 went on to hold, a Power of Attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138, NI Act. Court, however, cautioned, an exception would be when the Power of Atorney holder does not have a personal knowledge about transactions, in which case, he cannot be examined. Nevertheless, Court clarified, where the Power of Atorney holder of the complainant is in charge of the business of the complainant payee and the Power of Atorney holder alone is personally aware of transactions, there is no reason why he cannot depose as a witness. However, such personal knowledge must be explicitly asserted in the complaint.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, M/s. Naresh Potteries v. M/s. Aarti Industries, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8659 of 2023] decided on 02.01.2025.

_____

Three-Judge Bench of this Court settled rules of interpretation applicable to a Power of Attorney in Timblo Irmaos Ltd., Margo v. Jorge Anibal Matos Sequeira, (1977) 3 SCC 474. It was held, a Power of Attorney must be interpreted in context of whole; purpose of powers conferred must then be examined through circumstances in which it was executed; and finally, necessary powers must be implied.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, M.S. Anathamurthy v. J. Manjula, [Civil Appeal Nos. 3266-3267 of 2025] decided on 27.02.2025.

_____

The view taken in Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar,(2009) 14 SCC 782 is, if a Power of Attorney holder is authorized to execute a document, say, a Sale Deed, he would then become an ‘executant’ of the Sale Deed and can directly present it for registration under Section 32(a) and it would not be necessary to apply tests prescribed under The Registration Act, 1908 apropos Powers-of-Attorney. With due respect to Learned Judges who decided Rajni Tandon, we are unable to subscribe to this view. We are of considered opinion, issue requires to be addressed and conclusively settled by a Larger Bench.

– G. Kalawathi Bai v. G. Shashikala, [Civil Appeal Nos. 9497-9501 of 2025] decided on 25.07.2025.