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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 173

HORACE OWEN COMPTON BEASLEY, KT.
Thayarammal – Appellant
Versus
Pitty Kuppuswamy Naidu, M. Krishnammal by her power Agent by T. Balasubramia Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

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













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