Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Jamil Abdar Kadar VS Shankarlal Gulabchand...
Checking relevance for BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA VS A. K. BALAJI...
Checking relevance for S. Ramachandra Rao VS S. Nagabhushana Rao...
Checking relevance for Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. VS R. K. Chawla...
Checking relevance for Moti Natwarlal VS Raghavayya Nagindas And Company...
Checking relevance for DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS KESHAV KAUSHIK...
Checking relevance for Oil & Natural Gas Commission VS Offshore Enterprises Inc...
1992 0 Supreme(Bom) 584 : The Bombay High Court has ruled that an advocate cannot simultaneously act as both the constituted attorney of a party (under power of attorney) and as the advocate on record for the same cause. The court held that combining these two roles violates the principle of detachment and impartiality expected of an advocate, and is contrary to law and professional ethics. Specifically, it stated that ''''an Advocate who acts or appears or pleads before the Court in a professional capacity must be a client with separate and distinct identity,'''' and that ''''no Advocate is entitled to circumvent this principle directly or indirectly.'''' The court further directed that the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall not accept any Vakalatnama in favour of a firm of Advocates where one or more partners also hold a power of attorney from the plaintiff or defendant in the same cause.Checking relevance for Tehsil Bar Association VS U. P. Power Corporation Limited...
Checking relevance for Indrasan Parsad VS Presiding Officer...
2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 2001 : The Bombay High Court, in the context of representation before Labour Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has established that a legal practitioner (advocate) cannot represent a party if they are also the holder of a Power of Attorney for that party, unless specific and explicit consent from the opposing party and specific leave from the court are obtained. The judgment in Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen (1976) (equivalent to AIR 1977 SC 36), which is cited and endorsed in the document, clearly holds that ''''a lawyer, simpliciter, cannot appear before an industrial Tribunal without the consent of the opposite party and leave of the Tribunal.'''' The court emphasized that consent and leave must be explicit and cannot be implied. Therefore, a person who holds a Power of Attorney and also acts as an advocate for a party is not permitted to do so without explicit consent from the opposing party and specific leave from the court, which directly supports the proposition that the power of attorney of a party cannot simultaneously be the advocate of that party without meeting these strict procedural requirements.Checking relevance for Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Baker Hughes Ltd....
Baker Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Baker Hughes Ltd. - Delhi (2011)
: The Bombay High Court in the landmark judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Offshore Enterprises Inc., AIR 1993 Bombay 217, held that an Advocate is not entitled to act as both a constituted attorney (with authority to sign pleadings and affidavits) and as an advocate in the same litigation. The court explicitly prohibited the combination of these two roles, stating that ''''an Advocate cannot combine the two roles'''' and that ''''law does not permit the combination of two capacities in the same cause.'''' This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent cases, including the present document, which confirms that ''''an Advocate cannot act in the dual capacity, that of a constituted attorney and an advocate'''' and that such practice is ''''opposed to law.''''Checking relevance for RECKITT AND COLMAN OF INDIA LTD. VS JITENDRA NATH MAITRA...Checking relevance for Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel VS National Rayon Corporation Ltd. ...
1954 0 Supreme(Bom) 133 : A recognized agent with a general power-of-attorney has no right of audience in Court on behalf of the party. The right of audience is a natural and necessary concomitant of the right to plead, and since a recognized agent cannot plead, they also lack the right to address the court or appear in a representative capacity beyond mere appearance or acting. This principle is supported by Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court, S.8 of the Bar Councils Act, and S.9 of the Bombay Pleaders Act, which collectively restrict the right to plead and act in court to advocates, vakils, attorneys, or duly enrolled pleaders, excluding general agents under power of attorney.Checking relevance for Paradip Port Trust, Paradip: Management Of Keonjhar Central Co Operative Bank LTD. VS Their Workmen...
Checking relevance for Ramon Services Private LTD. VS Subhash Kapoor...
Checking relevance for Mahabir Prasad Singh VS Jacks Aviation Private LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Vinoy Kumar VS State Of U. P. ...
2001 3 Supreme 343 : The Bombay High Court has held that an advocate cannot file a writ petition challenging the transfer of his client''''s case from one court to another on behalf of his client, as he lacks locus standi. This is because Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, only entitles an advocate to practise law and does not permit him to substitute himself for his client. Filing a writ petition in his own name is not part of his professional obligation, and thus such a petition is not maintainable. The court emphasized that a person must have a personal interest or direct injury to their rights to have standing to file a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, and an advocate representing a client does not meet this criterion unless the petition is filed in public interest or under exceptional circumstances involving inability of the affected party to approach the court.
