C. A. Z. No. 93 of 2011. Case: Mrs. Varsha A. Maheshwari Vs Ms. Bhushan Steel Ltd. and Anr. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | C. A. Z. No. 93 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajay Maheshwari, Adv. and For Respondents: Jugal Kishor Gilda, Amicus Curiae |
| Judges | S. A. Bobde, J. and Smt. V. K. Tahilramani , J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - Order 3 Rule 1; Advocates Act (25 of 1961) - Section 32; Powers of Attorney Act (7 of 1882) - Section 2 |
| Citation | AIR 2011 Bom 58 |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S. A. Bobde, J.
-
At the hearing of this appeal, Shri Ajay Maheshwari, holding the Power of Attorney on behalf of the appellant Mrs. Varsha Maheshwari, his wife, claimed to be heard on her behalf. Shri Maheshwari asserted his right to be heard by this Court on the basis of the Power of Attorney executed by his wife. His contention was that since the Power of Attorney empowered him "to act and appear" on behalf of his wife, it conferred a right of audience before the Court. Since it appeared to us that there was no right of audience conferred to power of attorney before the Court of Law, we decided to go into the issue and requested Shri Gilda, Advocate to assist us as amicus curiae.
-
After hearing amicus curiae and Shri Ajay Maheshwari, the following position emerges. Shri Maheshwari, Power of Attorney claims the right to be heard in view of holding a power of attorney and being a recognized agent under Order 3 of Civil Procedure Code, which empowers persons holding power of attorney to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the parties. The question is whether such persons are, therefore, entitled to "plead" on behalf of the persons authorizing them to appear and act on their behalf. The question is no more res integra and seems to be settled by long line of decisions in this Country, beginning with the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Ebrahim Saleji v. Johurmull Khemka, reported at AIR 1916 Cal 181(1). The said Division Bench of that Court in a classic one line judgment held as follows:
A recognized agent as such has no right of audience.
This view was followed by a judgment of learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court in re, Eastern Tavoy Minerals Corporation Ltd., reported at AIR 1934 Cal 563, who relied on the earlier judgment of the Division Bench and observed that he was supported by so high an authority as the late Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. The learned single Judge held that Order 3, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code does not confer on recognized agent a right of audience and, therefore, declined to hear Mr. Harcourt, who claimed the right of audience on behalf of the company by virtue of power of attorney executed in his favour by two Directors of the company.
-
The next decision in which the same view was taken is the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case of M. Krishnammal v. T. Balasubramania Pillai, reported at AIR 1937 Mad 937, where the Madras High...
To continue reading
Request your trial