TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a vakalatnama filed by a newly engaged advocate can be accepted without a no objection from the advocate already on record.
Analysis: A litigant has the freedom to disengage an advocate and appoint another advocate of choice at any stage of the proceedings. That right is not conditional upon securing a no objection from the earlier advocate. Fairness may require informing the earlier advocate, but such intimation is not a condition precedent to filing a new vakalatnama. If the earlier advocate has any grievance regarding fees or otherwise, the proper course is to return the brief and seek appropriate legal remedy; retaining the file or obstructing substitution of counsel is impermissible. Refusal to return the papers may amount to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Conclusion: The objection that the new vakalatnama must bear the no objection of the advocate already on record is unsustainable, and the vakalatnama filed by the new advocate must be accepted.
Final Conclusion: The right of a party to change counsel is absolute, and administrative or procedural objections cannot be used to deny substitution of advocate.
Ratio Decidendi: A litigant's right to appoint and substitute counsel is absolute, and acceptance of a new vakalatnama cannot be made contingent on a no objection from the earlier advocate.
TaxTMI 
