https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430559 The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-appellant's wife, as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, could represent him in civil proceedings, distinct from her role as an advocate. The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata to uphold previous orders allowing her to act as a GPA holder. It clarified that Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, did not prohibit her from representing the plaintiff in that capacity. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the Trial Court's orders and affirming the wife's right to cross-examine witnesses as a GPA holder, not as an advocate. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430559 The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff-appellant's wife, as a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, could represent him in civil proceedings, distinct from her role as an advocate. The Court applied the doctrine of res judicata to uphold previous orders allowing her to act as a GPA holder. It clarified that Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, did not prohibit her from representing the plaintiff in that capacity. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the Trial Court's orders and affirming the wife's right to cross-examine witnesses as a GPA holder, not as an advocate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430559