Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Right of Audience in Second Appeal - Main Points and Insights
Limited Right of Audience for Respondent: According to Rule 30, a respondent's right of audience before the Tribunal is generally limited to counsel or solicitor with existing rights of audience, or others allowed with leave of the Tribunal. It emphasizes that any other person allowed with the leave of the Tribunal to appear on the party’s behalf may have such a right ["COMPETITION COMMISSION vs GRAY LINE TOURS OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS - Competition Tribunal"].
Right of Audience in Criminal and Civil Proceedings:
Legal Officers and Public Officers:
Agents with Power of Attorney:
Analysis and Conclusion
In second appeals, the respondent's right of audience is not automatic and depends on their legal capacity, whether they are a counsel, solicitor, or authorized by the Tribunal or Court. Generally, parties such as informants, petitioners, or agents with powers of attorney do not have a right of audience unless explicitly granted by law or court discretion.
References:
In the complex world of Indian litigation, questions about who can speak for a party in court often arise, especially in higher appeals. Imagine you're the respondent in a second appeal—do you, or your representative, have an automatic right to be heard? This is a critical issue governed by statutes, rules, and judicial precedents. This post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and laws, to help you navigate this terrain.
Important Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on established legal principles and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
In a second appeal under Indian law, the respondent generally does not have an automatic right of audience before tribunals or courts unless explicitly provided by law or rules. The right of audience is a privilege, not an absolute right, and can be regulated, restricted, or conditioned by statutes, rules, or regulations governing the particular tribunal or court. Sanjay Ghiya VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1961
This principle stems from the recognition that legal representation is tightly controlled to maintain order and expertise in proceedings. As courts have emphasized, the right of legal practitioners, including advocates, to appear before tribunals or courts is not an absolute right but is subject to statutory regulation. Sanjay Ghiya VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1961
The foundation lies in laws like the Bar Councils Act and the Advocates Act. Section 14(1)(b) of the Bar Councils Act states that an advocate's right to practice in tribunals is subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, including specific rules that may restrict or regulate their appearance. Sanjay Ghiya VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1961
For tribunals, rules often impose further conditions. For instance, Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act requires a party's right to be represented by a legal practitioner to be subject to the tribunal's permission or consent of the other parties. A. N. Rangaswami VS The Industrial Tribunal, Fort St. George, Madras - 1953 0 Supreme(Mad) 296
Courts have upheld these restrictions, noting they do not violate constitutional rights but respect the nature and purpose of the tribunal. David Karim Andrew Nisbet VS Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, (MHA) Government of India - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3456
A crucial distinction exists between qualified advocates and others:- Advocates: Their right to plead and appear is regulated but recognized under the Advocates Act.- Recognized Agents: A person with a general power of attorney does not have automatic right of audience. The Supreme Court in Re-Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corpn. clarified that to plead is not to make or do an appearance or an application or an act, and is not within Order 3, Rule 1. Lalhriatkima (L), S/o Kapthuama (L) VS C. Lalrinkimi, D/o Kapthuama (L) - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 943- Respondents Themselves: Mere presence or party status does not confer the right unless authorized. Sanjay Ghiya VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1961A. N. Rangaswami VS The Industrial Tribunal, Fort St. George, Madras - 1953 0 Supreme(Mad) 296
The Bombay High Court echoed this: a recognized agent with a general power of attorney has no right of audience in court. Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel VS National Rayon Corporation Ltd. - 1954 0 Supreme(Bom) 133
Multiple judgments affirm that right of audience is not inherent:- Tribunals' procedural rules legitimately restrict legal representation. David Karim Andrew Nisbet VS Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, (MHA) Government of India - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3456- In Thayaramal (Madras High Court), agents under general power of attorney were denied audience absent specific authorization. Lalhriatkima (L), S/o Kapthuama (L) VS C. Lalrinkimi, D/o Kapthuama (L) - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 943
Recent cases from other contexts bolster this:- In a writ petition under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the court held that a licensee (second respondent) has no right of appeal or audience even against a release order, stating this Court having held that the second respondent has no right of appeal or audience. N. R. Seethapathy VS Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Accomodation Controller - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1159- Similarly, in RTI proceedings, the question arose whether the eighth respondent ought to be extended right of audience by the State Information Commission, underscoring that such rights are not automatic. Tata Motors Limited VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 27
In criminal matters, while victims may seek audience, magistrates are not bound to grant it without satisfaction that it aids justice. Babasaheb Poul VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 381
Even at preliminary stages like grant of leave in appeals against acquittal, respondents have no right of hearing. Good Value Marketing Company Limited VS Montex Corporation - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 139
While the general rule is restrictive, exceptions exist:- Explicit Statutory Permission: If rules for the second appeal (e.g., under CPC Order XLI) or tribunal grant it.- Court/Tribunal Discretion: Permission may be given if it serves justice, as in complex cases where a private person assists the court. Babasaheb Poul VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 381- Authorized Advocates: Properly enrolled advocates typically have the right, subject to conditions.
However, unauthorized persons or non-advocates acting solely as agents are consistently barred. Claims of inherent rights are rejected. A. N. Rangaswami VS The Industrial Tribunal, Fort St. George, Madras - 1953 0 Supreme(Mad) 296
If you're a respondent:1. Verify Authorization: Ensure your representative is an enrolled advocate or has specific permission.2. Check Tribunal/Court Rules: Second appeals under CPC Section 100 or special statutes may have unique provisions.3. Seek Permission if Needed: File applications for audience if not automatic.4. Comply Early: Non-compliance can lead to proceedings without your input.
In one case, a complainant was denied audience in defreezing proceedings, but the court stressed evaluating if hearing them assists justice—highlighting discretion over entitlement. Babasaheb Poul VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 381
Analogous scenarios reinforce caution:- In defamation suits involving public institutions, fair comment rights exist, but audience is procedural. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED VS MONEYWISE MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1384- Criminal petitions clarified no police custody post-bail, with de facto complainants' audience questioned. Maddipati Venkatasatya Ramu VS SHO, Humayun Nagar PS - 2014 Supreme(AP) 1210
These illustrate that Indian courts prioritize regulated representation to ensure efficiency and fairness.
Final Note: In a second appeal, the respondent generally does not have an automatic right of audience unless explicitly provided by law or rules. Proper authorization is key. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal professional.
References:1. Sanjay Ghiya VS Union Of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1961: Right of audience not absolute.2. A. N. Rangaswami VS The Industrial Tribunal, Fort St. George, Madras - 1953 0 Supreme(Mad) 296: Regulated by statutes like Industrial Disputes Act.3. Lalhriatkima (L), S/o Kapthuama (L) VS C. Lalrinkimi, D/o Kapthuama (L) - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 943: Re-Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corpn. on pleading rights.4. Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel VS National Rayon Corporation Ltd. - 1954 0 Supreme(Bom) 133: Agents' lack of audience.5. Additional insights from N. R. Seethapathy VS Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Accomodation Controller - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1159, Tata Motors Limited VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 2010 Supreme(Cal) 27, Babasaheb Poul VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 381, Good Value Marketing Company Limited VS Montex Corporation - 2009 Supreme(Bom) 139.
#RightOfAudience #SecondAppeal #IndianLaw
Rule 30 deals with the “Right of Audience” before the Tribunal and is in the following terms: “ 30. ... There are limited exceptions, for example, a solicitor without rights of audience can appear in open court in a company’s winding up case if the matter is agreed. It is not the practice to allow a solicitor without higher rights of audience to conduct a trial in the CFI. ... a counsel or solicitor having a right of audience before....
A short question raised for consideration is as to "Whether a lawyer engaged by the first informant has a right of audience while opposing a bail application filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?" ... 2. ... of the public prosecutor and the counsel so engaged has no right of audience and he cannot advance oral arguments independently. ... The general rule about the right of audience cannot be befitted in the procedural frame work of the CrPC. This ar....
Such party does not have audience as a matter of right in the contempt proceeding. 26. ... Issue therefore is, whether the parties in the writ petition have any right of audience before the Division Bench on the Criminal Contempt Rule being issued suo motu by the learned Single Judge in a contempt proceeding arising out of an order passed in such writ petition. 15. ... He has contended that, none of the other parties to the proceedings from which the Contempt Rule emanated has any #H....
JUDGMENT Thomson CJ (delivering oral judgment or, preliminary point): The second appellant in this appeal is the Chairman of the Ipoh Town Council. ... A common one is the test which is used to distinguish between a servant and a contractor, that is to say whether the master can direct not only what the servant does but also his way of doing so. ... That compels us to the conclusions that he is not in the present proceedings and for the purpose of the present proceedings to be considered a public offi....
JUDGMENT Thomson CJ (delivering oral judgment or, preliminary point): The second appellant in this appeal is the Chairman of the Ipoh Town Council. ... A common one is the test which is used to distinguish between a servant and a contractor, that is to say whether the master can direct not only what the servant does but also his way of doing so. ... To our mind, however, there is nothing in it inconsistent with our own view that s. 55(2) of the Advocates and Solicitors ordinance does not in itself con....
JUDGMENTThomson CJ (delivering oral JUDGMENT or, preliminary point): The second appellant in this appeal is the Chairman of the Ipoh Town Council. ... A common one is the test which is used to distinguish between a servant and a contractor, that is to say whether the master can direct not only what the servant does but also his way of doing so. ... That compels us to the conclusions that he is not in the present proceedings and for the purpose of the present proceedings to be considered a public officer....
JUDGMENT Thomson CJ (delivering oral JUDGMENT or, preliminary point): The second appellant in this appeal is the Chairman of the Ipoh Town Council. ... A common one is the test which is used to distinguish between a servant and a contractor, that is to say whether the master can direct not only what the servant does but also his way of doing so. ... Justice Wilson.To our mind, however, there is nothing in it inconsistent with our own view that s. 55(2) of the Advocates and Solicitors ordinance does not....
From the authorities the principal criteria which emerge for determining the issue are (1) the character of audience and whether it can be described as a private or domestic audience consisting of family members or members of the household, (2) whether the audience in relation to the owner of the copyright ... Chagla, therefore, contends that such agreements do not assign to these plaintiffs copyright in video films shown over Cable T.V. network. The second suit, howe....
In any event, this Court having held that the second respondent has no right of appeal or audience even in the release order passed by the first respondent on 31.05.2004, the pendency of the civil suit, as highlighted above, cannot come in the way of granting relief sought for by the petitioner. ... Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the allottee has a right of representation as against the proceedings, under Section 3–A (2) a....
Order of the High Court was assailed in Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court. ... The subject proceedings being filed before the Magistrate Court and since the petitioner (complainant) sought intervention and right to audience by filing an application, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the application as to whether the petitioner would be in position to assist the Court ... (c). though Magistrate is not bound to grant permission at the mere asking, but victim has a righ....
3. The issue in the instant application is whether Mr. Radha Nath Nandy has a right of audience before this court.
If there is no discernible nexus between what is stated and what is intended or what is now claimed to have been intended, the action must succeed. Dr. Tulzapurkar also refers to a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Tushar Kanti Ghose v Bina Bhowmick, 57 CWN 378 to much the same effect and most importantly saying that fair comment is not the private preserve of newspapers but is a right of other citizens and persons in the country. This is true whether or not the target audience is a select niche audience or the public at large.
The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that the petitioner is already in judicial custody and the question of assailing the order in Crl.M.P. No. 3019 of 2014 has become infructuous as the period of police custody is already over. I do not wish to go into the question whether the de facto complainant has right of audience in this matter.
4. Whether the eighth respondent ought to be extended right of audience by the State Information Commission?
Grant of leave or special leave precedes the admission of an appeal. It is, therefore, very difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the principles of natural justice or principles of audi alterem partem will have to be read in sub section 3 and sub section 4 of section 378 of the said Code of 1973 so as to give right of hearing to a respondent-accused at the stage of grant of leave or at the stage of admission of an appeal against acquittal. If a respondent has no right of audience at the stage of admission of an appeal against the order of ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
