Supreme Court of India
GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.versusR.K. CHAWLA & ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 444
- Decided
- 4 July 2011
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court refused to exercise its discretion under Section 32 and held that a non‑advocate power of attorney holder cannot appear for a company unless the Court expressly permits it, which it declined to do.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered an application by the Deputy Manager of Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., who held a power of attorney, to appear and argue the case on behalf of the company. The Court examined Sections 29, 32 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which restrict the right to practice in courts to enrolled advocates, while granting the Court discretion under Section 32 to permit a non‑lawyer to appear in a specific case. It held that a power of attorney holder who is not an enrolled advocate cannot automatically appear for an artificial person such as a company, and the Court may exercise its discretion to allow it. In this case, the Court declined to exercise that discretion and rejected the application, directing the company to engage a lawyer within four weeks. The decision underscores the distinction between the statutory right of advocates to practice and the limited, discretionary power of courts to permit non‑advocates to appear.
Issues considered
- Whether a person holding a power of attorney, who is not an enrolled advocate, can appear and argue on behalf of a company in court.
- Whether the Court may exercise its discretion under Section 32 of the Advocates Act to permit a non‑lawyer to appear for an artificial person.
- Whether directors or officers of a company have a statutory right to represent the company in court.
Legislation cited
- Advocates Act, 1961s. 29, s. 32, s. 33
Subjects
Advocates ActSection 32 discretionPower of attorneyCompany representationRight to practiceArtificial personCourt discretion
Judgment
(2011] 7 S.C.R. 846
A GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
v.
R.K. CHAWLA&'ANOTHER
(Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10490 of 2011)
JULY 04, 2011
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Advocates Act, 1961:
c ss. 29, 33 - Right to practice in courts - Held: A person
enrolled as an Advocate only can practice in courts - Natural
person .can appear in person and argue his own case
personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone
other than a person enrolled as an advocate to appear on his
behalf -s. 32, however, vests discretion in the court to permit
0
any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear
before the court and argue a particular case - In the instant
case, an application for permission was filed by the Deputy
Manager, power of attorney holder to argue the case
personally on behalf of the petitioner-company - Supreme
E Court refused to exercise discretion under s.32 and rejected
the said application - Petitioner-company granted four weeks
time to engage a lawyer to appear and argue on its behalf
s. 32 - Right to appear/argue on behalf of entity - Held:
F As regards the artificial persons like a company registered
under the Companies Act or a registered co-operative society
or a trust, neither the Director of the company nor member of
the Managing Committee or officer bearer of the registered
society or a trustee has a right to appear and argue on behalf
G of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders
or office bearers or Directors - However, court has discretion
uls. 32 to permit such person to appear on behalf of that
entity.
H 846
GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. 847
R.K. CHAWLA & ANR.
ss. 29 and 33 - Right of an enrolled lawyer to appear on A
behalf of someone and discretion vested in the court to
permit a non-lawyer to appear before it - Distinction between.
Power of attorney: Right of power of attorney holder to
appear or argue - Held: Power of attorney holder cannot,
unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in court on behalf of B
anyone, unless permitted by the court uls. 32 of Advocates
Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements
etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone else, unless
prohibited by Jaw-"' Advocates Act, 1961 - ss.29, 32, 33. ·
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl. M.P. No.
10490 of 2011. ·
. From the ~udgment & Order, dated 21.4.2009 of the High
Court Of Bombay & Goa at Panaji in Criminal Revision
0
Application No. 60 of
200B. ·>·
~ I . WITH
Crl. M.P. No. 10490 of 2011.
E
Petitioner-I n-Persoh.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
Mr:Vishnu Kerikar, Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims
F
to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner~Goa .
Antibiotics &Pharmaceuticals Limited in this case. He wishes
to argue the case. personally on behalf of the petitioner.
' ' '
Section· 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter
···referred
.;;,
lo as. the 'Act')
.
states as· follows:
' '
· "33. Advocates. alohe entitled to practise - Except as
·· othetwise provided In this Act or in any other law for the
· time being in force,. no person shall, on or after the H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A appointed day, be entitled to practise in any court or before
any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an advocate
under this Act."
A perusal of the above provision shows that only a person
B who is enrolled as an advocate can practice in a court, except
where otherwise provided by law. This is also evident from
Section 29 of the Act.
A natural person can, of course, appear in person and o
argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of
C attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an
advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be
to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.
Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the
court, authority or person to permit any person who is not
D enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue ·
a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a
person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue
before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on
the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even
E though he is not enrolled as an advocate.
In this case, an application for permission has been filed
by Mr. Vishnu Kerikar who wishes to appear and argue on
behalf of the petitioner-Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
F which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act.
We are not fnclined to exercise our discretion under Section
32 of the Act and hence we reject the said application.
However, we grant the petitioner four weeks' time to
G engage a lawyer to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-
company.
We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a
company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a o
registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director
H of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or
GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v. 849
R.K. CHAWLA & ANR.
office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right A
. to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is
distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors.
However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of
the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.
B
There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf
of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the
discretion in the Court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before
it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have
a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled
as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is C
vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other
than an advocate to. appear before it and argue the case. A
power of attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer,
appear in Court on behalf of anyone, unless permitted by the
Court. under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may D
sign sale deeds, agreements etc. and do other acts ori behalf
·cif someone else, unless prohibited by law.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned by four weeks to
enable the petitioner to engage a lawyer to appear and argue E
. on its behalf.
D.G. . Matter adjourned.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Advocates Act"Sign in to search