An Advocate Cannot Act As Both A Client’s Power Of Attorney Holder And His Counsel: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the practise of advocates serving as both power of attorney holders for their clients and advocates in the matter violates the Advocates Act of 1961.

Justice Pratibha M Singh instructed that a copy of the order be circulated to all lower courts by the Registry, noting that the said element must be meticulously ensured by all Trial Courts in the city.

The Court stated, “It is made evident that the practise of advocates functioning as power of attorney holders for their clients, as well as advocates in the issue, is inconsistent to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

Three petitions arose from three separate disputes involving the same property, and the Court was hearing them all.

The issue in the pleas was whether Amarjeet Singh Sahni, who was acting as the Plaintiff’s power of attorney holder and had verified the plaint on his behalf, could also participate as a counsel in the case.

He had stated before the Court in one of the cases that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama and continue to maintain the power of attorney.

The attorney also stated that he would withdraw his Vakalatnama in the Trial Court proceedings and that he would no longer represent the Plaintiff in this case.

Taking the aforementioned guarantee into account, the Court decided that no further remarks in the case should be made.

The lawyer further informed the Court that the parties’ issue had been settled through a Deed of Settlement/Memorandum of Understanding dated July 30, 2021.

As a result, the Court ordered the parties to appear before the Trial Court on January 28, 2022, to present their settlement and have it recorded.

“The Trial Court may also record the statement of the parties themselves, independent from their power of attorney holders, at the time of recording the settlement if it thinks it suitable. The parties may appear virtually, with the Plaintiff claiming to be a Thai resident, and the Court may record its satisfaction after hearing from the parties that the settlement is legitimate and in line with the law “Added the Court.

Advocates N.K. Aggarwal, Yogita Sunaria, and Pankaj represented the petitioners, and Advocate Amarjeet Singh Sahni represented the respondent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close