https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291682 A plaint or suit duly authorised by the plaintiff was not invalidated by breach of jail regulations, because those regulations did not alter the general law governing institution of proceedings. Defects in signature or vakalatnama were treated as procedural and curable, so the proper course was to address the merits rather than defeat the suit on technical grounds. The material also did not justify directing disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the vakil, as there was no evidence of forgery or conscious participation in forged uments; mere negligence was insufficient to invoke Section 476 CrPC or Section 14 of the Legal Practitioner's Act. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 1917 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Nov 2020 10:46:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291682 A plaint or suit duly authorised by the plaintiff was not invalidated by breach of jail regulations, because those regulations did not alter the general law governing institution of proceedings. Defects in signature or vakalatnama were treated as procedural and curable, so the proper course was to address the merits rather than defeat the suit on technical grounds. The material also did not justify directing disciplinary or criminal proceedings against the vakil, as there was no evidence of forgery or conscious participation in forged uments; mere negligence was insufficient to invoke Section 476 CrPC or Section 14 of the Legal Practitioner's Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Dec 1917 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291682