Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Party’s Right to Withdraw Vakalath - A party has an absolute right to withdraw their vakalatnama or authorization at any time, with or without cause, and courts, tribunals, or authorities cannot require a ‘no objection’ from the existing advocate for the withdrawal or for filing a new vakalatnama ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"].
Procedure for Changing or Discharging Advocate - When discharging an advocate, the party is entitled to have the case file returned, and refusal by the advocate to do so can constitute misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"]. The court's role is to ensure proper procedure is followed, including the filing of a formal application or memo indicating withdrawal, and obtaining court permission if required by specific rules, such as Rule 20 of the Kerala High Court Rules ["INDHCKLHC010276092018"].
No Objection Certificate (NOC) Not Always Necessary - In cases where an advocate already on record has not been discharged properly or where no formal ‘no objection’ is filed, a new advocate cannot enter vakalat without the consent or NOC of the existing advocate unless the advocate has been validly discharged ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"], ["INDKAR00000363291"]. The courts have clarified that unless the previous vakalat is formally withdrawn or the advocate is discharged, filing a new vakalat without NOC is not permissible.
Legal Consequences of Refusal to Relinquish Vakalath - If an advocate refuses to relinquish vakalat despite the party’s wish to discharge him, the court may take action, including permitting the party to file an application for withdrawal or discharge, and in some instances, the advocate's misconduct can be considered ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"].
Special Circumstances and Court’s Discretion - Courts may permit the substitution of advocates or the withdrawal of vakalat in special circumstances, provided proper procedure is followed, including filing a formal application and obtaining necessary permissions ["INDHCKLHC010276092018"], ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The procedure for withdrawing vakalat in case an advocate refuses to give a no objection involves the party formally communicating their intention to discharge the advocate, typically through a written memo or application. The party is legally entitled to do so at any time, and courts generally do not require a ‘no objection’ from the existing advocate to accept a new vakalat unless the advocate has not been formally discharged or the vakalat has not been withdrawn properly. Proper procedural steps, including court approval where mandated, must be followed to ensure the withdrawal is valid and to prevent misconduct. If the advocate refuses to relinquish vakalat, the party can seek court intervention for discharge, and courts have emphasized that the right to withdraw is absolute ["APARNA vs RANJITH BN - Karnataka"].
Changing lawyers mid-case can be stressful, especially if your current advocate refuses to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC). Many clients ask: what is the procedure for withdrawing vakalath in case of advocate refuse give no objection? This common issue arises in Indian courts where a vakalatnama (power of attorney granted to an advocate) remains valid until properly addressed.
In this guide, we'll explore the legal principles, court practices, and practical steps based on judicial precedents. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
A vakalatnama authorizes an advocate to represent you in court proceedings. Once filed, it binds the advocate to the case until revoked or replaced. Courts treat it seriously to prevent unauthorized changes that could disrupt proceedings.
The No Objection Certificate (NOC) is a document from the existing advocate confirming they have no objection to a new counsel taking over. Without it, courts typically reject new vakalats or appearances by replacement lawyers. As one ruling states: Until and unless a ‘No Objection Certificate’ is obtained from the existing Advocate who still holds the vakalath, no new counsel can enter appearance on record Bhagya Daughter Of Sri Hanumegowda VS Jayalakshmi Wife Of Sri C. Krishna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 477.
This protects the advocate-client relationship and ensures orderly litigation.
There is no codified, step-by-step procedure in statutes like the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for withdrawing vakalat when an advocate refuses NOC. Instead, courts rely on precedents and rules of practice.
In practice, securing NOC is the simplest path, as seen in cases where memos were rejected initially but accepted post-NOC Bhagya Daughter Of Sri Hanumegowda VS Jayalakshmi Wife Of Sri C. Krishna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 477.
Refusal doesn't leave you helpless, but courts prioritize the valid vakalat. New counsel's filings (e.g., withdrawal memos) are often rejected until resolved: When the earlier counsel still holds a valid vakalath, the question of a new Advocate entering the case cannot be accepted Bhagya Daughter Of Sri Hanumegowda VS Jayalakshmi Wife Of Sri C. Krishna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 477.
No automatic mechanism exists for refusal; persistence via court application is key.
Courts recognize limited exceptions:- Proper Discharge: No NOC needed if proven (e.g., client's notice, endorsement). Details on manner known to law vary by jurisdiction Bhagya Daughter Of Sri Hanumegowda VS Jayalakshmi Wife Of Sri C. Krishna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 477.- Same Advocate's Subsequent Filing: Irregularities in filings can be cured by later vakalat submission, but this doesn't apply to counsel changes: the subsequent filing of the vakalat by the advocate was sufficient to cure the defect or irregularity... The Hyderabad Import Export Co. , Secunderabad VS The United Trading Co. , Bhagathikot, Jodhpur - 1957 0 Supreme(AP) 70.- Counsel Authority to Withdraw: Authorized counsel can withdraw petitions without client signature on memos, per Order III Rule 4 CPC ASHWITH KUMAR, S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ (ZP) - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 662.- Implied Consent or Special Cases: In labor disputes, consent for representation can be implied and hard to revoke Francis Gomez VS State of Kerala - 1998 Supreme(Ker) 512.
Advocates can also engage juniors without permission Kota Co-op. Agricultural Bank Ltd. and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others - 2001 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1.
To navigate refusal:1. Document Everything: Keep records of NOC requests and communications.2. Engage New Counsel Strategically: Have them file after NOC or with discharge proof.3. File Court Application: Seek directions to compel NOC or record discharge.4. Monitor Proceedings: Avoid delays by acting promptly.5. Consider Jurisdiction Rules: High Court rules (e.g., Kerala) may prescribe forms INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD THRISSUR vs C K RAJESH Advocate -N M MADHU - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27401.
In one instance, counsel withdrew vakalat via endorsement when unauthorized actions were alleged G.C.SIVARAJ vs DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 34884.
Broader CPC powers (e.g., Order 41 Rule 33) don't directly apply Panna Lal VS State Of Bombay - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 34.
Changing counsel is your right, but follow procedures to prevent case setbacks. For personalized guidance, consult a local advocate familiar with your court's practices.
Disclaimer: This article provides general insights based on precedents and is not legal advice. Laws and interpretations vary; seek professional counsel.
References:- Bhagya Daughter Of Sri Hanumegowda VS Jayalakshmi Wife Of Sri C. Krishna - 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 477: Core NOC and discharge rules.- The Hyderabad Import Export Co. , Secunderabad VS The United Trading Co. , Bhagathikot, Jodhpur - 1957 0 Supreme(AP) 70: Vakalat curing defects.- INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD THRISSUR vs C K RAJESH Advocate -N M MADHU - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27401: Change procedures.- Others integrated as noted.
#VakalatWithdrawal, #ChangeAdvocate, #LegalIndia
submits that it is unfair practice on the other counsel filing vakalath without no objection. ... objection of the Advocate already on record to accept the vakalathnama filed by another Advocate. ... On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. ... The ....
Therefore, learned counsel argued that in this case also the first petitioner who is party to the present suit he himself signed the Vakalath as an advocate for himself and also filed the Vakalath on behalf of other petitioners 2 to 10. ... He may not have enrolled as an advocate. However, in this case, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3, 5, this first petitioner being an advocate he himself signed the vakalath as ....
In this case, vakalath filed by the advocate on behalf of the management was accepted by the Labour Court without any objection from the Union, on the first day itself. ... Here, an advocate himself filed vakalath. No objection was raised by the union on knowing that an advocate filed vakalath for the management. The court has also accepted and taken the vakalath in file. On these facts and circumstances it can be ....
The person arrayed as an accused in this petition is an Advocate who has filed vakalath for the defendants in that suit. The complainant filed an interlocutory application (I. ... If the petitioner is a responsible member of the legal profession, it may act suo motu, more so, if the petitioner-advocate, as in the instant case, prays that the court should act suo motu. ... But if the High Court it directly moved by a petition by a private person feeling aggrieved, not being the Advocate General, can the ....
It is also stated that, as per Rule 20 of the Kerala High Court Rules, a procedure is prescribed for change of Vakalath and that procedure was also not followed by the registry while accepting ... In accordance with Rule 20, if no objection is given by the previous advocate, necessarily permission of the court is to be secured of course by filing suitable p style="text-align: ... While evaluating the situation, what I could gather is that, procedure to b....
Sub Sections 2 3, 4 and 5 of Section 308 of the Cr.P.C. provides the procedure for trial of the approver on withdrawing the pardon. ... In the case of Abu Salem (supra) after withdrawing the pardon the Advocate for the accused Abu Salem made a request to the Court to allow him to cross examine the approver. ... Learned Judge of the TADA Court granted this request and allowed the Advocate to cross examine the approver after withdrawing his pardon. The matter was carrie....
The learned counsel for the appellant has also made an endorsement in the bundle that he is withdrawing his vakalath. 4. ... He would further submit that he is not aware of the allegations made by the party in person, who is present before this Court and that he is withdrawing the vakalath. 3. ... Advocate General assisted by Mr.A. Selvendran, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.) ... The appellant has made an endorsement in the bundle to th....
The learned Advocate Sri A. G. Holla (as he then was) had led the argument. The proposition made by him is as hereunder : ... 'An Advocate who had filed Vakalath in a case in the High Court can engage any other Advocate to argue the case on his behalf without permission of the Court. ... Sri Holla had also placed reliance on (1975) 2 Kant LJ 96 where the Civil Court declined to entertain the request of a proxy Counsel to adjourn a case for and on behalf of the Counsel....
As per the cause list it shows that the notice is served on the respondent and no vakalath is filed. 6. ... TO WITHDRAWING THE MC KARNATAKA NO.62/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNAVARA AND TRANSFER THE SAID PETITION TO HON’BLE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU. ... The facts of the case are that the marriage between both the parties was solemnized on 29.11.2012 at Havyaka Kalyana Mantapa, Karki and from the wedlock they are blessed with baby girl on 28.11.2013 who is aged 11 years old now. ... LALITHA KANNEGANTI CI....
Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (4) give power to the party to abandon the claim filed in the suit wholly or in part. ... If really the counsel has not acted in the interest of the party or against the instructions of the party, the necessary remedy is elsewhere and the procedure adopted by the court below is consistent with the provisions of CPC. ... By operation of Section 107(2) of the CPC, it equally applies to the appeal and the appellate court has co-extensive power to permit the appellant to give up his appeal against the respondent either....
Even in that contingency, a fresh applications as aforesaid can be made. 8. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the advocate through whom I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2019 were filed could not have filed vakalath without obtaining ‘No Objection’ of the advocate who had filed vakalath on behalf of the appellant. It will be always open for the advocate who has already filed vakalath for the appellant to file ‘No Objection’ in writing of the earlier advocate appointed by the appellant so that the vakalath filed by him will be regularized. If the appointment is dete....
The counsel filed it before the court along with the case papers. The objection concerns what is said to be a defective presentation of vakalath-attestation.
It was further held that if the court or the authority finds that an examination of the advocate as a witness is indispensable and hence the disengagement of the advocate from the case would not jeopardise the interest of the party for whom he appears, then the court or the authority concerned can ask the advocate to relinquish the vakalath. The court has therefore every right to direct the advocate to relinquish the vakalath and withdraw from the case for appearing as a witness on the side of the plaintiff. This Court in Marikar (Motors) Ltd. vs. Ravikumar, 1988 (2) KLT 98....
The next aspect that falls for consideration is whether the court can direct the Advocate to relinquish the vakalath and withdraw from the case. This Court in Marikar (Motors) Ltd. v. Ravikumar, 1988 (2) KLT 986, held that the advocate shall not be asked to relinquish the vakalath if the court or the authority concerned, after enquiry in the lines suggested above, is of the opinion that the disengagement of the Advocate from the case would jeopardise the interests of the party for whom the advocate appears. It was further held that if the court or the authority finds that a....
The earlier advocate on record Sri. Nagaraj N. Naidu did not represent. He was present in the Commission on that day, but the Miscellaneous Petition no. 21 of 2011 was not called out. Then it appears on the basis of ‘No Objection’, present advocate took the vakalath on 20.05.2011. At that time, it was informed him that the case is posed on 25.05.2011.
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
