Seeking Justice: The Importance of a Strong Divorce Advocate

1. No this is not the only way. Unless there is some fee due he should give you the documents without any issues. 2. No there are no risk and he shall not create any problem lest he does he himself will land into pronlem. 3. NOC is no mandatory and your lawyer can tell the situation to the court, also cite COVID as reason but papers are necessary. Court will listen. ( Look at Karnataka High Court Judgement Below). 4. You can lodge a complain to the Bar Council of Telangana with a copy to the old Advocate and you shall receive all very next say the the advocate receives the copy of the letter. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6526/2013 (LAC) Decided On: 02.12.2016 Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Rajashekar and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: H.G. Ramesh and John Michael Cunha, JJ. 1. Whether vakalatnama filed by a new advocate is to be accepted in the absence of 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, is the short question for consideration in this case. 2. Registry has raised an objection on the vakalatnama of the appellant filed by Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, advocate; objection is that the vakalatnama does not contain 'no objection' of the advocate already on record for the appellant. 3. We have heard Sri Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel, on the objection raised by the Registry. The learned counsel submitted that a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. Hence, a party cannot be compelled to obtain 'no objection' from the advocate already on record. Insisting for 'no objection' from the previous advocate will amount to putting a restriction on the right of a party to appoint an advocate of his choice. He sought for overruling of the objection raised by the Registry. In support of his submission, he relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma [MANU/SC/3273/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2912], and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.K. Saxena [MANU/SC/0913/2003 : AIR 2004 SC 311], and also a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri C.V. Sudhindra & Ors. vs. M/s. Divine Light School for Blind & Ors. [MANU/KA/0284/2008 : ILR 2008 KAR 3983]. 4. To examine the question raised, it is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in R.D. Saxena v. Balaram Prasad Sharma [MANU/SC /3273/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 2912]: "15. A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative. 17. If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate. But if the advocate who is changed midway adopts the stand that he would not return the file until the fees claimed by him is paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportion. There may be cases when a party has no resource to pay the huge amount claimed by the advocate as his remuneration. A party in a litigation may have a version that he has already paid the legitimate fee to the advocate. At any rate if the litigation is pending the party has the right to get the papers from the advocate whom he has changed so that the new counsel can be briefed by him effectively. In either case it is impermissible for the erstwhile counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise that fees is yet to be paid. 18. Even if there is no lien on the litigation papers of his client an advocate is not without remedies to realise the fee which he is legitimately entitled to. But if he has a duty to return the files to his client on being discharged the litigant too has a right to have the files returned to him, more so when the remaining part of the lis has to be fought in the court. This right of the litigant is to be read as the corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate. 23. We, therefore, hold that the refusal to return the files to the client when he demanded the same amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Hence, the appellant in the present case is liable to punishment for such misconduct. 42. ........It is true that an advocate is competent to settle the terms of his engagement and his fee by private agreement with his client but it is equally true that if such fee is not paid he has no right to retain the case papers and other documents belonging to his client. Like any other citizen, an advocate has a right to recover the fee or other amounts payable to him by the litigant by way of legal proceedings but subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by law or the rules made in that behalf. ......." (Emphasis and underlining supplied) 5. In the context of the question raised, the following observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri C.V. Sudhindra & Ors. vs. M/s. Divine Light School for Blind & Ors. [MANU/KA/0284/2008 : ILR 2008 KAR 3983] are also apposite: " We are therefore of the considered opinion that the contract of vakalathnama can be withdrawn by the client at any time. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalathnama. Precisely the same right has been exercised by respondent No. 1 herein (defendant No. 7 in the suit) who had earlier engaged the petitioners on their behalf as Advocates to represent them. ...... " ......if the Advocate feels that he has any genuine claim or grievance against his client, the appropriate course is to return the brief with endorsement of no objection and agitate such right in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law and not indulge in arm twisting methods by holding on to the brief." 6. As could be seen from the observations made in the two decisions extracted above, a party to a litigation has an absolute right to appoint an advocate of his choice, to terminate his services, and to appoint a new advocate. A party has the freedom to change his advocate any time and for whatever reason. However, fairness demands that the party should inform his advocate already on record, though this is not a condition precedent to appoint a new advocate. 7. There is nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama. The right of a party to withdraw vakalatnama or authorization given to an advocate is absolute. Hence, a party may discharge his advocate any time, with or without cause by withdrawing his vakalatnama or authorization. On discharging the advocate, the party has the right to have the case file returned to him from the advocate, and any refusal by the advocate to return the file amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In any proceeding, including civil and criminal, a party has an absolute right to appoint a new Advocate. Under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. Therefore, it follows that any rule or law imposing restriction on the said right can't be construed as mandatory. Accordingly, Courts, Tribunals or other authorities shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new advocate. 8. As observed in the decisions referred to above, if an Advocate is discharged by his client and if he has any genuine claim against his client relating to the fee payable to him, the appropriate course for him is to return the brief and to agitate his claim in an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 9. As stated above, under no circumstance, a party can be denied of his right to appoint a new advocate of his choice. The right is absolute and not conditional. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry on the vakalatnama is overruled. Hereafter, the Registry shall not ask for 'no objection' of the advocate already on record, to accept the vakalatnama filed by a new Advocate.

It is necessary to scrutinize that registered Settlement Deed in favour of that adopted daughter for the terms and conditions specified therein along with relevant documents of court cases. Until and unless the documentary evidences are scrutinized as a whole,legal remedies cannot be suggested on this issue.

Dear Sir, If you are not comfortable just change the advocate and hire another advocate. It is your privilege to change the advocate as follows: ================================================================== Order 3 of Civil Procedure Code gives aggrieved persons the right to choose one’s pleader. Therefore changing of pleader with the leave of the Court is possible. The new pleader should submit a duly signed Vakalathnama to the court. Hence it is possible to change one’s pleader. In a few cases problem arises with the case history. If the pleader fails to give it to the client, the client can apply for the order sheet by an application to the Court. In normal Courts, NOC (No objections certificate) to be taken from the previous Advocate. The previous advocate may sign on the left margin of Vakalathnama (Power) saying he has no objection to engage any other Advocate. In case, previous Advocate not ready to give NOC then the aggrieved party/client can issue a notice by himself to his previous Advocate saying that he is not comfortable with his service as such his legal services are terminated with immediate effect. Such notice to be sent to the previous Advocate by registered post acknowledgment due (RPAD). Then copy of such notice and postal receipt may be produced before the Court by the new Advocate along with new Vakalathnama which will be accepted by the Court by terminating the services of previous Advocate.

Dear Sir, You can get justice if you approach a Civil Court by appointing any of the local advocate. For full procedure contact me through Vidhikarya.

Dear Client, Section 19 of THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 deals with the powers of the Children's Court. As per sub-section (1)(ii) of section 19 of the Act, after the receipt of the preliminary assessment from the Juvenile Justice Board under section 15 of the Act, the Children's Court may decide that there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and may conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders following the provisions of section 18 of the Act Sec 24 of the Act deals with the removal of disqualification on the findings of an offense. As per Sub-Section (2) of Sec.24, the Board shall make an order directing the Police, or the Children's Court to its registry that the relevant records of such conviction shall be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or, as the case may be, a reasonable period as may be prescribed, Provided that in case of a heinous offense where the child is found to be in conflict with law under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 19, the relevant records of conviction of such child shall be retained by the Children's Court. Given the above provision of the relevant Act, you may approach the Juvenile Justice Board or Children's Court through an Interlocutory Application(IA) praying for the deletion of records of conviction. In case your application deserves merit, the Court may allow your appeal and pass an order accordingly.