9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered on the merits and was dismissed by our order dated October 26, 1998, and, consequently, the appeal stood rejected. The present application is filed for review of the said order dated October 26, 1998, on the ground that there was no service of the order of the competent authority dated July 14, 1998, either on the petitioners or their agent as required by section 22 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (the SAFEMA ). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was service of the order on the minor daughter of the first petitioner which is no service in the eye of law and the service of the order on the advocate of the petitioners is not valid, as an advocate is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was not served on the petitioners but was served on their advocate. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the advocate is an agent of the petitioners within the meaning of section 22. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to Black s Law Dictionary and contended that an agent is a person authorised by another (principal) to act for or in place of him ; one entrusted with another s business. He next referred to Stroud s Judicial Dictionary and submitted that an advocate is not an agent. He also referred to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary and contended that a solicitor or any qualified legal practitioner other than an advocate may be an agent. The meaning of agent in the dictionaries and the law dictionary mentioned above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant. For the purposes of subrule (3), an appeal from any decree or order in the suit as per clause (c) shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit. Hence, the authority of a pleader continues until all proceedings, which include an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, are terminated. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. [1955] AIR 1955 Bom 262, it was held that an advocate has not only the right to practice but also to act on behalf of the clients. Similar was the ratio in the decision in Advocate-General of Madras v. Amanullakhan [1967] AIR 1967 Mad 162 and Hormusji K. Bhadha v. Nana Appa [1934] AIR 1934 Bom 299, wherein it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
