VAKALATNAMA

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Vakalatnama is an authorization given to an Advocate to represent before the judicial forum on behalf of the client. Without this authorization any Advocate cannot appear before the judicial forum.   The Vakalatnama should be a valid one.   Without a valid vakalatnama the Advocate can neither be allowed to represent the parties nor any adjournment request from the Advocate can be entertained.

 In ‘Uday Sankar Triyar V. Ram Kaleswar Prasad Singh and another [2005 (11) TMI 436 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court laid down law in regard to filing up proper vakalatnama in a proceeding before Courts. In this case the Supreme Court expressed their concern in regard to the manner in which defective vakalatnamas are routinely filed in courts.   Vakalatnama, a species of Power of Attorney, is an important document which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an Agent, which is binding on the litigant who is the principal.   It is a document which creates the special relationship between the lawyer and the client.   It regulates and governs the extent of delegation of authority to the pleader and the terms and conditions governing such delegation.   It should, therefore, be properly filled/attested/accepted with care and caution.   Obtaining the signature of the litigant on blank vakalatnamas and filling them subsequently should be avoided. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of the following defects routinely found in Vakalatnamas filed in Courts:

• Failure to mention the name(s) of the person(s) executing the vakalatnama and leaving the relevant column blank;
• Failure to disclose the name, designation or authority of the person executing the vakalatnama on behalf of the grantor (where the vakalatnama is signed on behalf of a company, society or body) by either affixing a seal or by mentioning the name and designation below the signature of the executant (and failure to annex a copy of such authority with the vakalatnama)
• Failure on the part of the pleader in whose favor the vakalatnama is executed, to sign it in token of its acceptance;
• Failure to identify the person executing the vakalatnama or failure to certify that the pleader has satisfied himself about the due execution of the vakalatnama;
• Failure to mention the address of the pleader for purpose of service (in particular in cases of outstation counsel);
• Where the vakalatnama is executed by someone for self and on behalf of someone else, failure to mention the fact that is being so executed. For example, when a father and the minor children are parties, invariably there is a single signature of the father alone in the vakalatnama without any endorsement/statement that the signature is for ‘self and as guardian of his minor children’.   Similarly, where a firm and it s partner, or a company and its Director, or a Trust and its trustee, or an organization and its office bearer, execute a vakalatnama, invariably there will be only one signature without even an endorsement that the signature is both in his/her personal capacity and as the person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporate body/firm/society/organization;
• Where the vakalatnma is executed by a power of attorney holder of a party, failure to disclose that it is being executed by an Attorney holder and failure to annex a copy of power of attorney;
• Where several persons sign a single vakalatnama, failure to affix the signature seriatim, without mentioning their serial numbers or names in brackets (Many a time it is not possible to know who have signed the vakalatnama where the signatures are illegible scrawls);
• Pleaders engaged by a client, in turn, executing vakalatnamas in favor of other pleaders for appearing in the same matter or for filing an appeal or revision. (It is not uncommon in some areas for mofussil lawyers to obtain signature of a litigant on a vakalatnama and come to the seat of the High Court, and engage a pleader for appearance in a higher court and execute a vakalatnama in favor of such pleader.

The Supreme Court further observed that the Registries/offices do not verify the vakalatnamas with the care and caution they deserve. Such failure many a time leads to avoidable complications at later states. The need to issue appropriate instructions to the Registries/Offices to properly check and verify the vakalatnamas filed requires emphasis.

Discussions to this article

[Dharmnath Avhad]

sir

The author has selected untouched subject. This subject needs more discussion with respect to

A) whether VAKALTNAMA  prescribed under special laws is legal

B) Whether two pleaders can be authorised in one vakalatnama

C) wether it cam be withdrawn by granter. 

 

 

Adv. D. B. Avhad

[MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN]

Dear Sir, The Vakalatnama is the authorization If any law prescribes the form for that purpose it is valid. It can be withdrawn at any time by the granter. In my opinion single Vakalat is enough if more than one pleaders are authorized. The Court will take the name of the first appeared in the vakalat for the purposes of proceedings.