2009 (10) TMI 707 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of vakalatnama - Held that - While scrutinizing the vakalatnamas filed, be it in the Registry of this Court, the Subordinate Courts in Delhi or the Tribunals, Authorities and Foras in Delhi, failure/defect in the vakalatnamas, noted in sub paras a to e of Para 21 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Uday Shankar s case 2005 (11) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT , shall be treated as a deficiency in the execution of the vakalatnamas making liable the said vakalatnama to be returned Further, in the situation contemplated by sub paras f to i of Para 21 of the decision in Uday Shankar s case, vakalatnamas not executed in the manner indicated in the said sub paras shall also be treated as a deficiency in the execution of the vakalatnama, making liable said vakalatnama to be returned.

Summary

Issues:
Proper execution of vakalatnamas by learned Members of the Bar; Importance of scrutinizing vakalatnamas; Deficiencies in the filing of vakalatnamas; Need for proper verification and scrutiny of vakalatnamas; Public interest in ensuring vakalatnamas are filed correctly.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to address the casual filing of vakalatnamas by learned Members of the Bar, causing confusion and delays in legal proceedings. The grievance focused on the need for detailed instructions on executing vakalatnamas, especially for juristic entities. The respondents acknowledged the importance of vakalatnamas, as outlined in Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure. Orders 29 and 30 further guide on how living persons can represent corporate entities. The Supreme Court's decision in AIR 2006 SC 269 highlighted nine deficiencies in filed vakalatnamas, emphasizing the need for proper execution and verification to avoid complications.

The Court agreed with the petitioner's concerns and emphasized the necessity for proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas by the Registry and other legal entities. While declining to issue a Mandamus due to clear legal mandates, the Court directed the Registry and related bodies to ensure thorough scrutiny of vakalatnamas. Specific rules were outlined for vakalatnamas not executed by the principal, requiring proof of authorization. Deficiencies noted in the Supreme Court decision were deemed as grounds for returning inadequately executed vakalatnamas.

In the interest of public welfare and efficient judicial proceedings, the Court issued directives for strict compliance with vakalatnama execution standards. The Registrar General was tasked with disseminating the order to relevant authorities for adherence. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition and ordering the provision of copies to concerned parties for compliance, without imposing any costs.