Whether court should accept vakalatnama filed by new advocate without no objection of previous advocate?

 Whether vakalatnama filed by a new advocate is to be accepted in the absence of 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, is the short question for consideration in this case.

As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.

7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. 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. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can't be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.

8. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

9. As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6526/2013 (LAC)

Decided On: 02.12.2016

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs.

M. Rajashekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.G. Ramesh and John Michael Cunha, JJ.

Print Page

Consumer Protection Act And Advocates act

Agents Have Been Permitted to appear before the consumer forum. The appearance of authorized agent is not inconsistent with Sec. 33 of advocates act.

Supreme Court of India

C. Venkatachalam vs Ajitkumar C. Shah & Ors. on 29 August, 2011

Author: D Bhandari

Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.868 OF 2003
C. Venkatachalam ...Appellant Versus
Ajitkumar C. Shah and others ...Respondents With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.869-870 OF 2003
Bar Council of India ...Appellant Versus
Sanjay R Kothari and Ors. ...Respondents J U D G M E N T
Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. These appeals emanate from the judgment dated 4.9.2002 delivered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1147 and 1425 of 2002. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment because same questions of law are involved in these appeals. BRIEF FACTS:

2. A complaint bearing no.428 of 2000 of alleged deficiency in service was filed before the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (for short, Consumer Forum) against the two tour operators. During the pendency of the complaint, applications were filed by the opposite parties contending that the authorized agent should not be granted permission to appear on behalf of the complainants as he was not enrolled as an Advocate. The Consumer Forum considered the applications and held that the authorized agent had no right to act and plead before the Consumer Forum as he was not enrolled as an advocate.
3. In complaint bearing no.167 of 1997 filed before the Consumer Forum, the majority expressed the view that the authorized agents have a right to file, act, appear, argue the complaint to its logical conclusion before the Consumer Agencies. The issue was taken to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) which stayed the hearing of the matters in which authorized agents were appearing and refused to grant stay where authorized agents were injuncted from appearing before the 2
Consumer Forum. As a result, the proceedings in a large number of cases where the authorized agents were appearing had come to standstill.

Print Page