Powers of Attorney — Right of audience before Court — Power of Attorney Act, 1882, section 2.

Shri Ajay Maheshwari, holding the power of attorney on behalf of the appellant Mrs. Varsha Maheshwari, his wife, claimed to be heard on her behalf. Shri Maheshwari asserted his right to be heard by the Court on the basis of the power of attorney executed by his wife. His contention was that since the Power of Attorney empowered him ‘to act and appear’ on behalf of his wife, it conferred a right of audience before the Court.

Shri Maheshwari, holder of power of attorney, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd., reported at 2005 SCC 439, where the Supreme Court held that the right of power of attorney is to appear, plead and act on behalf of the party and can state on oath whatever knowledge he has about the case, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his personal capacity.

As to the circumstances in which a person may be permitted by the Court to appear, act and plead, the Bombay High Court referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, in the case of Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., reported at AIR 1978 SC 1019, wherein the Supreme Court held that a private person who was not an advocate, has no right to barge into the Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself.

In the later judgment in the case of T. C. Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, reported at (1999) 3 SCC 614, the Supreme Court had followed the view in Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma & Anr., (supra) and upheld it.

The Court held that a person holding a power of attorney on behalf of a party authorising him to appear, act or plead for him before a Court of law is not entitled to a right of audience before a Court of law and cannot be heard as a representative of the party unless specifically permitted by the Court to do so upon a proper application moved by the party himself. As regards the application of the appellant Mrs. Varsha Ajay Maheshwari was concerned, having regard to the fact that the person seeking to represent her was her husband who was well versed with the circumstances of the case and being a person who had entered into all transactions relevant for the decision of the present dispute, he was permitted to address the Court in the matter.