Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Power of Attorney Act, 1882

8 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

T.C. MATHAIversusTHE DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA

1999 INSC 14431 March 1999Dismissed

The appellant, T.C. Mathai, held a power of attorney for a couple who were respondents in a criminal revision petition before the Trivandrum Sessions Court and sought the court's permission to appear and plead on their behalf. The Sessions Judge refused, stating that the request did not come from the couple, and the Hi

MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 63929 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a divorced woman filed an FIR in 2021 alleging that his former in‑laws had retained the gold ornaments he had given as stridhan at his daughter's 1999 marriage. The daughter had divorced in 2015, remarried in 2018, and a separation agreement had already settled all marital property. The High Court refused

AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.versusGIAN CHAND AND ORS.

2022 INSC 10628 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Amar Nath, executed a special power of attorney (PoA) on 28‑01‑1987 in favour of the second defendant to sell his land for Rs.55,000. When the first defendant could not pay, the second defendant allegedly returned the PoA on 02‑02‑1987 and the plaintiff claimed it was cancelled, yet no formal notice or r

BINAPANI PAULversusPRATIMA GHOSH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 49427 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ashutosh Ghosh purchased a house in 1935 in the name of his wife Suprovabala Ghosh by executing a power of attorney, which was later mutated in her name. After her death, the daughters, including Binapani Paul, obtained mutation of the property in their names and filed a suit for partition against their brother Ama

VISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2025 INSC 88423 July 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned ownership of a 2‑18‑10 bigha parcel of land in NOIDA, jointly purchased in 1997 by Reddy, Sudhakar and Vishnu. Reddy later sought to establish sole ownership by filing separate suits and a writ petition, suppressing the earlier joint‑ownership litigation, and obtained a High Court order declaring

A.C. NARAYANANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

2013 INSC 61213 September 2013Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be filed and verified by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the payee or holder in due course. The appellant, a company director, challenged the issuance of process based on complaints filed by a power of attorne

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2011 INSC 73911 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of transactions that rely on Sale Agreements, General Power of Attorney or Wills (collectively termed SA/GPA/Will transfers) as a mode of transferring immovable property. It observed that such arrangements are used to evade stamp duty, registration fees and to facilitate black‑mo

BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS

2024 INSC 7574 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) submitted a technical bid for a coal‑mining mega‑project tender floated by Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL). The Technical Bid Committee rejected the appellant’s bid, alleging non‑compliance with Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) concerning the Power of Att

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search