Supreme Court of India
GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. versus R.K. CHAWLA & ANOTHER
- Decided
- 4 July 2011
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2011] 7 S.C.R. 846 · 2011 INSC 444
- Also cited as
- (2011) 15 SCC 449
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Mr:Vishnu Kerikar, Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner~Goa Antibiotics &Pharmaceuticals Limited in this case. He wishes to argue the case. personally on behalf of the petitioner.
p. 847, margin F
Section· 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter ···referred lo as the 'Act') states as· follows:
p. 847, margin F
· "33. Advocates. alohe entitled to practise - Except as · · othetwise provided In this Act or in any other law for the · time being in force,. no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate under this Act."
pp. 847–848, margin F
A perusal of the above provision shows that only a person who is enrolled as an advocate can practice in a court, except where otherwise provided by law. This is also evident from Section 29 of the Act.
p. 848, margin A
A natural person can, of course, appear in person and o
p. 848, margin B
argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.
p. 848, margin B
Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the
p. 848, margin C
court, authority or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue · a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on
p. 848, margin C
the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled as an advocate.
p. 848, margin D
In this case, an application for permission has been filed by Mr. Vishnu Kerikar who wishes to appear and argue on
p. 848, margin E
behalf of the petitioner-Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act.
p. 848, margin E
We are not fnclined to exercise our discretion under Section 32 of the Act and hence we reject the said application.
p. 848, margin F
However, we grant the petitioner four weeks' time to engage a lawyer to appear and argue on behalf of the petitionercompany.
p. 848, margin F
We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a o registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right . to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.
pp. 848–849, margin G
There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the Court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to. appear before it and argue the case. A power of attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in Court on behalf of anyone, unless permitted by the Court. under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements etc. and do other acts ori behalf ·cif someone else, unless prohibited by law.
p. 849, margin B
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned by four weeks to enable the petitioner to engage a lawyer to appear and argue . on its behalf. D.G. . Matter adjourned.
p. 849, margin D