SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ker) 393

BALANARAYANA MARAR
Abdhu – Appellant
Versus
Veeravu – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Two questions of some importance arise in this revision. They are:

1. Can a counsel appearing in a case summoned as a witness by the opposite party? and

2. Can the court direct the counsel to relinquish the vakalath in case he refuses to give up the vakalath?

2. Revision petitioner-plaintiff and respondent-defendant were partners of a firm by name "Trichur Cotton Stores". The partnership was dissolved as per a deed dt.14-10-1983. The deed contains a clause that all the out standings will be collected by the defendant and the dues will also be paid by him. Tax due to Government was collected from plaintiff and he wanted the share of defendant to be reimbursed by him by filing O.S. 879/1987 before Sub Court, Thrissur. The suit was resisted by the defendant. Revision petitioner submitted a witness list containing the name of counsel for the defendant Sri. P.A. Surendranath and another counsel by name Sri Samuel. A petition was also moved as LA. 1955/1989 for permission to summon them as witnesses. The court below as per order dt. 5-1-1990 allowed that application. But that order was reviewed later on the application filed by the defendant as I.A. 142/1990. As per the order














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top