Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala 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