Page 1

GOA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. v.

R.K. CHAWLA & ANOTHER (Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10490 of 2011)

JULY 04, 2011 [Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.]

[2011] 7 SCR 846

The following Order of the Court was delivered

O R D E R  

Mr.Vishnu Kerikar, Deputy Manager, Finance & MS claims to be the  

power of attorney holder of the petitioner-Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals  

Limited in this case. He wishes to argue the case personally on behalf of the  

petitioner.  

Section 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the  

‘Act’) states as follows:

“33. Advocates alone entitled to practise  Except as otherwise  

provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, no  

person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practise in any  

court or before any authority or person unless he is enrolled as an  

advocate under this Act.”

A perusal of the above provision shows that only a person who is enrolled  

as an advocate can practice in a court, except where otherwise provided by  

law. This is also evident from Section 29 of the Act.  

A natural person can, of course, appear in person and  argue his own  

case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than  

a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold  

otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.

Page 2

Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority or  

person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear  

before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the  

right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue  

before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court to  

permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled  

as an advocate.  

In this case, an application for permission has been filed by Mr. Vishnu  

Kerikar who wishes to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Goa  

Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which is a company registered under the  

Indian Companies Act. We are not inclined to exercise our discretion under  

Section 32 of the Act and hence we reject the said application.  

However, we grant the petitioner four weeks’ time to engage a lawyer to  

appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-company.  

We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company  

registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a  registered co-operative  

society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the  

Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee  

has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is  

distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the  

discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to  

appear on behalf of that entity.  

There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone,  

which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the Court to  

permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act  

only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are  

enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested  

in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to  

appear before it and argue the case. A power of attorney holder cannot,

Page 3

unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in Court on behalf of anyone, unless  

permitted by the Court under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may  

sign sale deeds, agreements etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone  

else, unless prohibited by law.  

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned by four weeks to enable the  

petitioner to engage a lawyer to appear and argue on its behalf.