In a recent case decided by Delhi High Court, Brijesh Goyal v Daily Foods, an interesting legal issue arose: whether there is any bar on a pleader duly authorized by a party under a vakalatnama (power of attorney, or authority letter to the engaged advocate) to engage another pleader to plead the case on his or her behalf.
The suit was listed before the additional district judge (ADJ) for cross examination of the plaintiff’s witness.
However, on that day, the counsel for the defendant, in whose favour the defendant had executed the vakalatnama, deputized another advocate (by means of an authority letter) to appear, argue and cross-examine the witness on his behalf. The ADJ did not recognize the authority letter on the premise that neither the Advocates Act nor the Code of Civil Procedure recognized any such authority.
You must be a
subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber
to read this content, please
subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe
today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章，欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员。
The update of court judgments is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in, lbhasin@vsnl.com or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
