Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.36 seconds)T.C. Mathai & Anr vs The District & Sessions Judge, ... on 31 March, 1999
In the case of T.C.Mathai (supra), this Court was considering as to
whether under Section 205 of the Code, personal attendance of accused could
be dispensed with and permission could be granted to the power of attorney
holder to represent the accused and it was laid down that after dispensing with
personal attendance of an accused, he could be allowed to be represented only
by a "pleader" within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Code and "pleader" may
be of two kinds. The first refers to legal practitioners who are authorised to
practise law; and the second "any other person" appointed by a party with the
permission of the court to represent him in the proceeding, permission for which
must be sought by the party concerned meaning thereby that if an accused
wants himself to be represented by a power of attorney holder in court, he should
himself apply to the court seeking such a permission and no such permission can
be granted where the same has been sought by the power of attorney holder.
Ravula Subba Rao And Another vs The Commissioner Of ... on 9 May, 1956
But this Court has pointed out that
the aforesaid common law principle does not apply where the act to
be performed is personal in character, or when it is annexed to a
public office or to an office involving any fiduciary obligation, (vide
Ravulu Subba Rao v. CIT AIR 1956 SC 604).