Legal Notice - The Legal Chamber

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, or receipt of payment does not constitute a transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Only a duly registered sale deed confers ownership. The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A is inapplicable without the transferee being in possession, and a Will must be proved in strict compliance with the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property in Delhi between two brothers, Suresh Chand (Plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (Defendant No. 1), after the death of their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh claimed ownership of the property based on a set of documents executed by their father on a single day in 1996, including a Genera...