LawMirror.com

Results of vakalatnama

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 21-30 of 76 Results

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2018
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 3, Rule 4 -- Advocate not duly authorized by Vakalatnama - Vakalatnama filed by Advocate not in consonance with O.3.R.4 CPC - Writ petition drafted and filed by Advocate in the name of petitioners without their being any authority - Petitioners not appointed `A' as recognized agent and without any authority, claiming herself to Pairokar of..........

PATNA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2018
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 21 -- Recall of judgment - Ex-parte decree - Non-joinder of legal heirs - Suit for declaration - Plea as to applicants were not sent notice regarding pendency of first appeal - Vakalatnama found to have been filed by applicants in first appeal - Advocate categorically stated that applicant met him and handed over vakalatnama to..........

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, Section 43 -- Delay of 952 days in filing of second appeal - Eviction suit - Petitioners substantiated their lack of knowledge about restoration of appeal - Even, petitioners substantiated that they had no scope to contest appeal before first appellate Court and no vakalatnama was filed on their..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 -- Handwriting expert - Comparison of disputed signatures - Family settlement - Handwriting expert not taken any specimen signatures of plaintiff, nor he lifted signatures on plaint or vakalatnama for the purposes of comparison with disputed signatures - Only photocopies of signatures of plaintiff were seen by handwriting expert and compared..........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2016
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 3, Rule 4, Advocates Act, 1961, Section 35, Constitution of India, 1950, Article 225 -- Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, Ch.5, Rr.1, 2 - Appointment of new advocate - In absence of `no objection' of the advocate already on record - Party may discharge his advocate anytime, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or..........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2016
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 3, Rule 4, Advocates Act, 1961, Section 35, Constitution of India, 1950, Article 225 -- Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, Ch.5, Rr.1, 2 - Appointment of new advocate - In absence of `no objection'of the advocate already on record - Party has absolute right to appoint a new advocate - Even, party cannot be denied of his right to appoint a new..........

MANIPUR HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2016
Details

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Setting aside of arbitral award - Condonation of delay - All the four awards were sent to the appellant by registered post with A/D and presumption is that he was served unless such presumption is rebutted by the appellant - Even, appellant only denied receiving of copy of the award in..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2015
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 37 -- Appearance in suit - Filing of vakalatnama would amount to appearance in as much as there is no mandate and compulsory form which must be filed as an appearance in suit...........

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2015
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23, Rule 3, 3A -- Compromise decree - Setting aside - Condonation of delay - Denial of signatures by defendant on the vakalatnama and compromise as summons were not issued to him - Burden was on plaintiff to prove that compromise as well as vakalatnama was genuine - Since no evidence has been adduced in this respect by plaintiff,..........

KERALA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2015
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 9 -- Restoration of suit dismissed for default - An advocate can file restoration petition though vakalatnama does not expressly authorise him to file an application for restoration, if Court is satisfied that there was no express prohibition in doing so, it has to assume that counsel had implied authority to file such application...........

Showing : 21-30 of 76 Results