Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Supreme Court quashes strictures passed by Gujarat HC against advocate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has quashed the strictures passed by the Gujarat High Court against advocate Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani and restored the Second Appeal in a case involving Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar and others versus Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary and others.

The original plaintiff had filed a suit challenging a sale deed executed by Nanjibhai Sagrambhai Chaudhary in favour of Sureshbhai Hirabhai Chaudhary with respect to the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the lower courts, and an appeal was filed before the High Court.

The Second Appeal was filed by one Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, who claimed to be the Power of Attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the original plaintiff, prior to his death. The Second Appeal displayed all the legal heirs of the plaintiff as appellants, but only Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Parmar. The other legal heirs had not signed any Vakalatnama to prefer the Second Appeal.

The registry of the High Court raised office objections regarding the non-signing of the Vakalatnama by all the appellants, and the Second Appeal was dismissed. A Miscellaneous Civil Application was filed for restoration of the Second Appeal, which was allowed by the High Court.

Appellant-Lalitbhai Jesangbhai Parmar subsequently cancelled the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar, and Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani was engaged as an advocate to file a pursis for withdrawal of the Second Appeal. The High Court permitted the withdrawal, but Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar filed an application for review of the order and consequent restoration of the Second Appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for review, restored the Second Appeal to its original status, and passed strictures against Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani for his conduct as an advocate.

The Supreme Court held that Vitthalbhai Maganbhai Parmar had no right to file the Second Appeal on behalf of the other legal heirs of the original plaintiff. The court also held that the Civil Application for review of the order permitting withdrawal of the Second Appeal was not maintainable as the Power of Attorney had been cancelled.

The court further held that the strictures passed against Yogesh Navinchandra Ravani were unwarranted and restored the Second Appeal.

YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI    VS  NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS. 

Latest Legal News