Comments on Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 in 1 pages

A.A.JOSE BARODA

A.A.JOSE BARODA

Wrote on 15 May 2009  

Dear All, It is prudent to be concious of the fact that the NCDRC's judgement has merely been stayed, but not quashed and set aside by the SC. Therefore, it is felt that we should have patience to wait for the final outcome. However, personally I am of the firm view that if there is any defiency in rendering service, Lawyers should and could be proceeded against under the Consumer Protect Act. Considering the wide coverage of the said Act and the objects of the same, it would not be correct to say that service rendered by the Lawyer is beyond the ambit of the C.P. Act. Of course, final verdict of the SC would only make the issue clear.



Nitin

Nitin

Wrote on 19 April 2009  

Dear All, The issue regarding lawyers being held responsible/liable for the deficiency in their services offered to their clients touches the roots of their relationship with their clients and so needs a deep analyses and needs to adequately addressed by an act of parliament only.



N.K.Assumi

N.K.Assumi

Wrote on 18 April 2009  

Vakalat and Power of attorney are similar, but similarity does not mean the same and they are two distinct and different documents. It is beyound our wildest dream that accepting vakalat would mean that Lawyer is the agent of the Client like the agent and principal in the power of attorney.The issue is very important and anxiously awaiting the Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdict.


You need to be logged in to post comment






×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu

web analytics