Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Registry of the High Court, subordinate courts, tribunals and other fora in Delhi should be directed to scrutinise vakalatnamas properly and return vakalatnamas that are not duly executed.
Analysis: The filing of vakalatnamas is governed by the procedural requirements under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and, in the case of juristic entities, by the related provisions dealing with representation by authorised persons. The Court noted the recurring defects in vakalatnamas identified by the Supreme Court, including omissions in the name or authority of the executant, lack of proper acceptance by the pleader, absence of identification, inadequate disclosure where the vakalatnama is executed for self and another, and failures in cases involving attorney-holders or multiple executants. The Court held that the law on execution is already clear, and what was required was an administrative and judicial direction ensuring strict scrutiny by registries and filing offices.
Conclusion: The Court directed that vakalatnamas containing the stated defects be treated as deficient and be returned, and that proper scrutiny be enforced by the Registry of the High Court, subordinate courts, tribunals and fora in Delhi.