Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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. 

Similar News