Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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. 

Latest Legal News