Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Indian Kanoon - in Satya Narain vs . Surender Kumar Sharma on 6 September, 2019Matching Fragments
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. MM dated 16.05.2019 in complaint case no. 7987/16 on the files of Ld. Mahila Court- 03, Shahdara, Delhi. By the impugned order, the Ld. MM had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in the complaint case. In the application, it is sought that the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant be rejected.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is an advocate by profession and he appears in the court as a client as well as an advocate which is impermissible as per the rulings in Mahipal Singh vs. State of U.P. of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Indian Kanoon Doc. 12670439, R. Muthukrishnan vs. Union of India Indian Kanoon Doc.61168833 and Gohel Himmat Singh vs. Patel Motilal Indian Kanoon Doc.1606683. In all the above rulings, it is held that an advocate cannot be a litigant as well as an advocate to appear in the court in the dual role.