The Division Bench clarified the legal position on obtaining NOC from an advocate before engaging the services of another advocate while perusing an earlier case law here.
Bhagya and Ors Vs Jayalakshmi and Ors on 13 Feb 2019Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification
Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016
Karnataka High Court held that (which is wrongly understood by many) once the advocate of a case on record of the Court is discharged, as per procedure established by law (termination letter and communicating the same to advocate), a party has absolute right to engage another advocate and no need of obtaining a separate NOC from the advocate, who was discharged. This was further clarified by a Division Bench here.
From Paras 6 to 9,
Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 20166. As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate.
7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can’t be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate.
8. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
9. As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for ‘no objection’ of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.
Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE KAR 6470], [2017 ILR KAR 59], [2017 AIR KAR 1], [2017 KCCR 1 383], [2017 AIR KANT R 4 210]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/128027421/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5845968353bee765a86aed81
Umapathi S Vs State of Karnataka on 19 Sep 2019
High Court of Karnataka directed (forced) the State Government to issue a advisory through DGP of the State regarding implementation of Zero FIR.
Umapathi S Vs State of Karnatak on 19 Sep 2019Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018
Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.
From Para 7,
7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.
And from Para 9,
Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 20189. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39
Rithvik Balanagraj B and Anr Vs BCI and Ors
Two law students moved Karnataka High Court challenging BCI, KSLU decision to hold intermediate semester exams. Here is the Petition…
Rithvik Balanagraj B and Ors Vs BCI and Ors PetitionThe Last status as on posting this message
Relevant News report: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/two-law-students-petition-karnataka-hc-circulars-bci-kslu-intermediate-semester-exams
Earlier News Report (wherein the PIL was dismissed): https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/law-students-move-karnataka-high-court-challenging-kslu-circular-for-holding-exams-165928
B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015
In regards to the explanation given to section 197 CrPC, Karnataka High Court categorically held as follows,
B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 201520. The submission that the sanction is necessary, as the appellants are not facing the charges under the Sections enumerated in the newly inserted Explanation to Section 197 does not commend itself to us. The Memorandum explaining the modifications contained in the Criminal Law Amendment 2013 itself states that the Explanation to Section 197 is proposed to be inserted so as to clarify that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant, if the offence relates to crimes against woman. Such a clarification cannot be stretched to mean that the sanction for prosecuting a public servant is a must, if the offence alleged does not relate to a crime against woman.
Citations :
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90130688/
Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.
Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 202011. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.
Nagaraj Rao Vs Sushma Rani on 01 Oct 2020
Course of events in this case at High Court of Karnataka.
- Husband files Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) and Wife makes defamatory statements in her Written Statement (WS)/Counter which she repeats in Examination. Trial Court allows RCR. Trail Court also allows Guardians and Wards Act (GWA) and allows visitation of Husband for the minor girl child. Wife shares the contents of the Counter with third parties.
- Husband files Defamation against Wife for sharing defamatory statements made in Counter. Trail Court allows it. 1 Month and 5000/- fine.
- Wife files Revision and Sessions Court dismisses it.
- Wife files Revision at HC to set aside the punishment given by Trial Court. HC part allows it and sets aside the punishment but enhances the fine to 15000/- to be paid within 60 days, and in default, punishment for 1 months!!!
- Husband also files Revision at HC to enhance Punishment. Dismissed
Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020
The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.
This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.
Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013
Because of the allegation of Dowry giving are made by married women, husbands are resorting to these kind of hyperbolic tricks which fall flat on their face. Instead of hitting at the root cause, peripheral aspects are stroked only to be later quashed like this.
Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013Citations: [2013 KCCR 4 3137], [2013 AKR 4 454], [2014 ILR KAR 199], [2013 SCC ONLINE KAR 5387], [2013 AIR KANT R 4 45]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56094831e4b01497112656fb
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140258661/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/viral-goda-viral-dhulia-others-v-virag-r-dhulia-another/DDF53
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Mrs-Viral-Goda–Viral-Dhulia-and-Others-Versus-Virag-R-Dhulia-and-Another-2013-07-25
