Skip to content


Vinayak Krushna Kale Vs. Janardan Krushna Kale - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 3589 of 1984 and Civil Application No. 5444 of 1984
Judge
Reported in1988(4)BomCR207; (1984)86BOMLR622; 1985MhLJ72
ActsBombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 - Rule 2(1); Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 34(1)
AppellantVinayak Krushna Kale
RespondentJanardan Krushna Kale
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Mutalik and ; B.N. Shrotri, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateV.P. Tipnis, Adv.
Excerpt:
advocates act (xxv of 1961), section 34(1) - rules framed by bombay high court under section 34(1), rule 2(1) -- vakalatnama filed subject to condition whether valid -- effect of acceptance of such vakalatnamas -- civil procedure code (v of 1908), order iii, rules 1, 4(1).;from rule 2(1) of the rules framed by the bombay high court in exercise of the statutory power conferred upon it by section 34(1) of the advocates act, 1961, it is clear that a vakalatnama which contains any condition subject to which it is filed is not in accordance with the rules. such a vakalatnama is not in accordance with law.;even if such vakalatnamas are accepted, any condition mentioned in them cannot be regarded as binding upon the clients. - .....the petitioner in civil application no. 5444 of 1984.3. section 34(1) of the advocates act, 1961 empowers the high court to make rules laying down the condition subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practice in the high court and the courts subordinate thereto. accordingly, in exercise of this power, the high court has made rules and rule 2(1), in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, states as follows :--'no advocate shall act for any person in any court unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a vakalatnama in the form annexed hereto and signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment.' a vakalatnama which contains any condition subject to.....
Judgment:

R.A. Jahagirdar, J.

1. In these two matters it came to my notice that the appearance filed on behalf of the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3589 of 1984 and on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Application No. 5444 of 1984 contained an endorsement that the responsibility of getting information about the different dates in the matter is on the client and subject to this condition alone the Vakalatnama has been filed. I passed an order on 10th October 1984 directing that I should hear the Advocates and the Bar Council on this.

2. Today Mr. Page, the learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the Bar Council. I heard Miss Mutalik, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3589 of 1984 and the petitioner in Civil Application No. 5444 of 1984.

3. Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the High Court to make rules laying down the condition subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto. Accordingly, in exercise of this power, the High Court has made rules and Rule 2(1), in so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, states as follows :--

'No Advocate shall act for any person in any Court unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a Vakalatnama in the form annexed hereto and signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a Power of Attorney to make such appointment.'

A Vakalatnama which contains any condition subject to which it is filed is not in accordance with the rules framed by the High Court in exercise of the statutory power conferred upon it by the Advocates Act, 1961. Such a Vakalatnama, therefore, is not in accordance with law. The office should not in future accept such Vakalatnamas. The offices of the subordinate. Courts should also be informed accordingly.

4. Even if such Vakalatnama are accepted, any condition mentioned in them cannot be regarded as binding upon the clients. It is not necessary at this stage to decide the question as to whether the Advocates can or cannot enter into agreements with their clients regarding their overall responsibility in conducting the cases which they are engaged by the clients. That is a question of professional ethics which the Bar Council has to handle. A copy of this order may, however, be sent to the Bar Council of Maharashtra for its information.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //