Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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