https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299509 Acceptance of a vakalatnama ordinarily obliges a pleader to appear and conduct the case unless there is a lawful discharge, an agreement to the contrary, or a genuinely unavoidable absence. Mere non-payment of fees or general inconvenience does not justify abstention, and a voluntary boycott of the courts is not a valid excuse. Where legal practitioners stayed away during a hartal intended to paralyse judicial work, the conduct was treated as grossly improper and within the disciplinary provisions governing misconduct of legal practitioners. The conduct was found to amount to professional misconduct, but no further disciplinary action was taken in the references as a matter of leniency. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:07:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299509 Acceptance of a vakalatnama ordinarily obliges a pleader to appear and conduct the case unless there is a lawful discharge, an agreement to the contrary, or a genuinely unavoidable absence. Mere non-payment of fees or general inconvenience does not justify abstention, and a voluntary boycott of the courts is not a valid excuse. Where legal practitioners stayed away during a hartal intended to paralyse judicial work, the conduct was treated as grossly improper and within the disciplinary provisions governing misconduct of legal practitioners. The conduct was found to amount to professional misconduct, but no further disciplinary action was taken in the references as a matter of leniency. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Feb 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299509