Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Mahaboob Sir Prajuvanthu Sree Rajah ... vs Turlapati Subba Rao And Ors. on 24 September, 1926

Karur Ghee Stores Rep. By V. Periasamy vs N. Palaniappan And Another on 27 April, 2001

Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahand Khan, ; (7) J. Jermons v. Allimal, 1997 (3) LW 235; (8) Hotel De-Broadway v. M/s Snow White Industrial Corporation, ; (9) A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb v. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, 1964 (1) MLJ 112; (10) Shivaji Rao v. Bhajanga Rao, 1974 TLNJ 183; (11) P.K. Suraivele Mudaliar v. S.P. Mohana Sundraam, 2000 (1) LW 578 and (12) S. Mohammed Iqubal v. M. Padmanabhan, .
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Hormusji K. Bhabha vs Nana Appa on 30 January, 1934

23. Now in the first place it is necessary to observe that the relation between a client and his advocate who is engaged to act for him is that of a principal and agent. If any authority is necessary, it would be found in Appa Rao v. Subba Rao (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 249. The document, therefore, creates agency and clearly enables the advocate to act for his client, but does it empower him to act in his name also? I think when an advocate acts for his client, he does all his work in the name of his client in the sense that it is by virtue of his vakalatnama which is an instrument of substitution that he. does all acts in the litigation which otherwise his client would have done himself in his own name, and he carries on the litigation not in his own name but in the name of his client. It is true that his rights and liabilities under the vakalatnama are different from those of a lay agent holding a power-of-attorney on behalf of a litigating party, called a recognised agent, e. g., he can plead and exercise all the rights accorded to an advocate, which a mere recognised agent cannot enjoy. At the same time he cannot terminate his appointment without the leave of the Court, while a recognised agent can do so without any such leave. But all these considerations do not take a vakalatnama out of the category of a power-of-attorney if it fulfils all the conditions laid down in its definition. The fact that under Order III, Rule 4(1), the appointment of a pleader could be made not only by a party himself but also by a person holding a power-of-attorney from the party to make such appointment does not mean that the pleader's authority itself does not amount to a power-of-attorney. It only means that a party can authorise a person to do all acts on his behalf in a litigation including the appointment of a pleader. That, however, does not imply a contra-distinction between a pleader and a person holding a power-of-attorney. A pleader can derive his authority not only from his client directly but from any person who is specially authorised to make such appointment.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jothi Animal And Ors. vs Kulandai Vadivel And Ors. on 29 October, 1999

9. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the abovesaid decision in support of her submission to the effect that in that case though the learned Judge has factually found that the said building was treated as one, the shops were given distinct and separate door numbers. But, the learned Judge has also specifically taken note of the fact that the landlord is having his own residence in the first floor situated over the said shops. On the basis of the said fact, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the landlord seems to have treated the entire building as one unit.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur vs Jadab Chandra Choudhury And Ors. on 27 August, 1935

The reasons that were given in that case have been considered in a decision of the Madras High Court in Parthasarathy Appa Rao v. Subba Rao, 1927 Mad 157, in which a number of decisions bearing upon this point were considered and we are in agreement with what has been observed in that case, namely that the omission of any mention of legal representatives in the words under "Description of suit" in Article 89 does not mean that the article is not intended to apply to a suit against the legal representatives. We are of opinion that having regard to the decisions to which we have referred, Article 89 is the proper article to apply to the suit and that the learned Judge in holding that the accounts in respect of the period prior to the death of the plaintiff's father were barred has taken the right view on the question of limitation which arose in this case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jothi Ammal And Three Others vs Kulandai Vadivel And Others on 29 October, 1998

9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the abovesaid decision in support of her submission to the effect that in that case though the learned Judge has factually found that the said building was treated as one, the shops were given distinct and separate door numbers. But, the learned Judge has also specifically taken note of the fact that the landlord is having his own residence in the first floor situates over the said shops. On the basis of the said fact, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the landlord seems to have treated the entire building as one unit.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1