Read Judgment: Anil Kumar & Another vs. Amit 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 23, 2021: The Delhi Court has opined that any advocate who is engaged by a client would have to play only one role, i.e., that of the advocate in the proceedings and cannot act as a power of attorney holder and verify pleadings and file applications or any other documents or give evidence on behalf of his client. 

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh therefore observed that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients, as also as advocates in the matter is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. 

The observation came pursuant to a question as to whether an advocate who was acting as the power of attorney holder of the Plaintiff (Amit Ved-Plaintiff-Respondent) and had verified the plaint on behalf of the said Plaintiff could appear also as a counsel in the matter. 

Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted that earlier by an order of the Court dated July 13, 2021, Amarjeet Singh Sahni (Power of Attorney Holder) submitted that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and continue as the power of attorney holder and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff. 

Mr. Sahni again assured this Court that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama in the Trial Court proceedings and he would no longer act as a counsel for the Plaintiff in this matter, added Justice Singh. 

Justice Singh also found that Mr. Sahni submitted that he shall take steps within two weeks for substitution of the Vakalatnama by a new counsel.

The Plaintiff Mr. Amit Ved, is a resident of Bangkok, Thailand. Mr. Sahni claims to be his power of attorney holder. Mr. Sahni has verified the plaint and all other pleadings on behalf of the Plaintiff. He is also appearing as the counsel for the Plaintiff which would be impermissible. However, since in the present case, Mr. Sahni has assured the Court that he would no longer act as an advocate in the matter, no further observations are being passed in this regard”, observed the High Court. 

Justice Singh also found that Mr. Pankaj, who is the power of attorney holder for the Defendants and who has filed the present revision petitions, as well as Mr. Sahni who is the power of attorney holder for the Plaintiff, submit that the dispute between the parties have been resolved by way of Deed of Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated July 30, 2021. 

Since this Court had perused the original MoU and both Mr. Pankaj and Mr. Sahni, confirmed that the MoU/Deed of Settlement had been executed, the Delhi HC disposed of the petitions as the dispute had been settled. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment