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

Whether mutation entries can be taken without permission of collector?

The request of the petitioner is to register the
mutation and, therefore, he applied to the Deputy Superintendent
of the Land Records, Gondia. The said authority has directed the
petitioner to approach the Collector, Gondia and produce the No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from the said Collector.
The request of the petitioner is simplicitor to mutate
his name in the land records. At this stage, it is difficult to
understand as to how the authorities under the Land Revenue Code
are concerned with the rights of the parties like the petitioner. The
matter of title to the properties stands apart and can be dealt with
and decided by the Competent Courts. In these circumstances, it is
difficult to sustain the directions of the Dy. Superintendent of Land

Records, Gondia. Let this Deputy Superintendent of Land Records,
Gondia consider the request of the petitioner for effecting mutation
in the revenue records in accordance with rules and without
insisting on production of a No Objection Certificate from Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No. 1023 of 2012
Indrakumar Harivallabh Mundra
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
 & A. P. BHANGALE, JJ.
 DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2012.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to obtain no objection from collector for mutation of transfer of land?

Prayer of petitioner is to set aside the
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011,   sent   by
Taluka Inspector Land Records (TILR), Murtijapur,
Akola, rejecting his request for mutation on the
ground that it is not accompanied by No Objection
Certificate (NOC) of the Collector, Akola.  
3. Shri.   G.   K.   Mundhada,   the   learned
Counsel for the petitioner, relies upon provisions of
Section   149   of   the   Maharashtra   Land   Revenue

Code,   1966,   to   urge   that   the   petitioner   had
purchased a residential Nazul plot bearing No. 1, 2
and   3­6,   Sheet   No.   26(B),   admeasuring   119.7
sq.mtrs. with construction of 74.34 sq.mtrs., vide
registered   Sale   Deed   dated   8th  April,   2004   for
valuable consideration. The document is registered
at   serial   No.   875/2004   and   in   view   of   said
production,   it   was   obligatory   upon   Revenue
authorities   to   take   note   thereof   and   correct
revenue records.   He further relies upon order of
this   Court   dated   12th  June,   2012   to   urge   that
calling   upon   petitioner   to   produce   NOC   from
Collector is already found irrelevant and arbitrary
by this Court.  
 The   petitioner   admittedly     has
purchased the  land by registered document and
hence   his   rights   need   to   be   taken   note   of   in
Revenue Records.   Mere entry in the land record
does   not   confer   any   title   and   cannot   prejudice
contentions   of   any   private   party   in   the   matter.
Demand of NOC by impugned order, therefore, is
unjustified in present facts.  This Court has, while
deciding writ petition No. 1023 of 2012 on 12th
June, 2012, has already found refusal to consider
such application for mutation unjustified.  In view
of   this   position,   we   set   aside   the   impugned
communication   dated   7th  June,   2011.     The
respondent No. 3 shall look into the request made
by petitioner in accordance with law and without
insisting for such NOC within  a period of eight
weeks from today.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 375 of 2013
Abdul Vahabkhan Abdul Sattarkhan
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 
CORAM :  B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED  :  JUNE 27, 2013.

Print Page

Whether Advocate can refuse to give No objection to his client if client wished to engage other Advocate?

The normal conduct of a client is that if he wishes to change
his counsel for some reason or the other, he should approach him for
return of the brief and to obtain “No Objection” from him. In case his
counsel returns the brief, it is well and good and if he refuses to return
the brief or refuses to give “No Objection”, the client may invoke the
provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of the CPC to redress his grievances.
However, in the present case, the applicants have failed to that and
without determining the appointment of their earlier counsel, Shri Ng.
Kumar, Advocate, they had moved an application for deleting their
names from the array of parties in the writ petition through another
Advocate which is unfair and unreasonable on the part of the applicants.
The moment an Advocate is engaged, a client is expected to be fair and
reasonable to him and ought to give proper instructions accordingly. But
in any case and for whatever reasons, the applicants have expressed
their view that they don’t want Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to continue as
their counsel and that a new Advocate be engaged in his place and 
since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said R.D. Saxena’s Case
(supra) has categorically observed that for whatever reason, if a client
does not want to continue the engagement of a particular Advocate, it
would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the
profession that he would return the brief to the client and it is time to
hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative,
this court is of the view that this application is liable to be allowed. In
view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the
duty of Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to give “No Objection” so that the
applicants could engage a new Advocate of their choice. If Shri Ng.
Kumar, Advocate is of the view that the action of the applicants being
unfair and unreasonable, has caused prejudice to his professional right
and privilege as a counsel, it is open to him to seek appropriate relief
and redress his grievance from an appropriate forum.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
M.C. (W.P. (C)) No. 147 of 2016
(Ref:- W.P. (C) No. 202 of 2015)

 Shri Ashem Shyamkesho Singh,  V  Thokchom Ranjan Meetei, 


B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH

Date of Judgment & Order :: 08-07-2016

Print Page