Gpa validity in court

Is the GPA signed by the principal (owner of GPA) and the attestation by the authority in USA?

Yes signed by owner of GPA and attestation by the Advocate  in USA

 
 

GPA is perfectly valid .To cotest the court cases,gpa is not required to be registerd  in sub registrar office. 

GPA attested in USA is valid, however, it is required to be authenticated by area SDM (but not Sub-Registrar) for filing a case.

Show the document to a local prudent lawyer.

GPA has to be authenticated by indian embassy in foreign 

When the GPA is attested by an embassy/Indian Counselor at abroad/Notary in abroad, it is valid for evidence purposes. For any other, it shall be got validated under Sec.18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the District Registrar or SDO/Joint Collector but not the Sub Registrar and it does not required registration , only validattion.

an indian person who reside in united states execute a general power of attorney in united states regarding court proceedings  in india is not valid in indian legal system. The honble supreme court has laid many guidlines in its landmarking judgement in suraj lamp industries versus state of haryana 2012 AIR SC 206:2012(1)SCC 656 regarding general power of attorney.

Thanks for your reply.But above judgement  talks about property registration.

MY query: is GPA given by USA notary but not registered by indain sub registe nor indain embassy  valid in filling court cases?

already said.   When the GPA is attested by an embassy/Indian Counselor at abroad/Notary abroad, it is valid for evidence purposes. For any other, it shall be got validated under Sec.18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the District Registrar or SDO/Joint Collector but not the Sub Registrar and it does not require registration, only validation.

 

Yes, the GPA is valid. The decision of the  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Tukaram, Through G.P.A. Holder, ... vs Bheem Rao And Ors.has categorically answers this issue -

"On the face of it the order of the learned District Munsif suffers from illegality and legal propriety. When the plaintiff's learned Advocate himself filed GPA into Court, permitting the holder of the GPA to prosecute the litigation, the Court was bound to take note mat it was being done at the instance of the plaintiff himself. In other words, the execution and authorisation for the GPA by the plaintiff was prima facie established. The reason for the party to appoint a GPA to conduct or prosecute a litigation is irrelevant in dealing with such a matter. Such cases wherein GPA holder wants to prosecute the proceedings on behalf of the parties are governed by Order III Rules 1,2 and 6 of C.P.C. Rule 1 of Order III contemplates that any appearance, application or act in or to any Court required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be. on his behalf. Therefore, whatever a party to a litigation can do in person, can be done by his recognized agent or by pleader as the case may be. Rule 2 of the Order explains as to who are the recognized agents. Sub-clause (a) of the Rule in unmistakable terms classify persons holding powers-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties etc., as the recognized agents. Therefore, the function of the Court to deal with such an application is to first of all to find out whether there is duly authorised agent called recognized agent by means of power of attorney or any legally empowering document in that regard. Rule 6(2) of Order III contemplates that the appointment of a recognized agent may be special or general and shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the principal, and such instrument or, if the. appointment is general, a certified copy thereof shall be filed in Court. The provision is so clear as to how an authorised agent can be appointed by the party to a litigation. That was done in this case. Secondly by filing the GPA into Court the appointment of him by the party viz., the plaintiff was confirmed. In such a situation it was beyond the jurisdiction and power of the Court to probe into the propriety or otherwise of the party or the GPA entering into such an authorisation even to the extent of accepting the contention of the defendants, that such a GPA was designed to harass them as there were litigations against them and they were being conducted by the power-of-attorney only for that end. The whole approach of the matter by the learned District Munsif is not only illegal and improper but also beyond the jurisdiction. In the considered opinion of this Court this case has satisfied all the requirements for the power-of-attorney to come on record and to conduct litigation on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit in view of the fulfilment of the conditions under Order III Rules, 1,2(a) and 6(2) of C.P.C., and therefore, the order under revision cannot be sustained, and deserves to be set aside. The C.R.P. is allowed with costs. The petitioner shall be permitted to conduct the suit 10 for and on behalf of the plaintiff subject to the terms of the power-of-attorney. The Court may direct that such a record shall be made in the cause title if necessary."

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries has been in a different context and is of no application in the instant case