HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY, KT.
Thayarammal – Appellant
Versus
Pitty Kuppuswamy Naidu, M. Krishnammal by her power Agent by T. Balasubramia Pillai – Respondent
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt.,C.J.
1. This matter has been referred to us by Gentle, J.
2. The following questions have been raised, namely:
(1) Whether an agent with a power-of-attorney to appear and conduct judicial proceedings has the right of audience in Court;
(2) Whether the agent is entitled to notice if his principal wants to appear and conduct the proceedings himself in person or appoints an advocate to appear for him; and
(3) Whether the power-of-attorney agent can carry on business as a solicitor or attorney, drafting, engrossing and filing plaint, judges summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process and charge fees to the principal.
3. That all three questions stand to be answered in the negative seems to us to be clear; but as the respondent has definitely asserted a right to the notice specified in Question No. 2 and certainly by strong implication if not by his conduct to the right of audience stated in Question No. 1 and the matters in Question No. 3 also arise both out of his conduct and claim, we consider that this matter which is of course of extreme importance to the legal profession should be fully discussed by us.
4. The matter arises in the foll
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.