LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ssujeet-Advocate (n/a)     16 February 2012

Association of employers to circumvent law

This is really very important judgment. sec 36(4) is in conflict with the advocates act.


 7 Replies

ssujeet-Advocate (n/a)     16 February 2012

This is really very important judgment. sec 36(4) is in conflict with the advocates act.

jagadish paranjape (Advocate)     16 February 2012

The situation is the result of sec.36 of the I.D.Act 1947,which is found to be unequitable by the courts.Now sec 30 of the Advocates Act has been notified wef 15th June 2011 and hereafter advocates have right to practice before all courts,tribunals,and other judicial forums.

1 Like

jagadish paranjape (Advocate)     28 February 2012

The purpose of notifying sec. 30 of Advocate Act was to overcome the restrictions placed by I.D.Act,and other Acts. Now Advocate can practice as of right before any judicial forum without any one's permission or consent.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     28 February 2012

This is a very interesting thread. Mr. Soni has posted a lot of information.

Learned Mr. Paranjape  has given valuable advice.

Contribution by learned experts/emebers having mastery on the subject matter is sought to enrich the forum.

jagadish paranjape (Advocate)     29 February 2012

The I.D.Act 1947 contains sec 36,which allows Advocates to appear in proceedings only with consent of the other side and permission of the concerned court. Inspite of this Act being in field,subsequently Advocates Act 1961 was enacted.Sec. 30 of the said Act did not carve out any exceptions to it. Thus after the Advocates act came in force,the Advocates by way of right became entitled to practice before any judicial forum without consent and or permission.However that did not happer because notification for Sec.30 of Advocates Act was not issued.Now that deficiency is removed by notification dt.15.6.2011.There is no point point on arguing as to which is a special Act and which is general Act,because both Act operate in different fields and are special Acts in there respective fields.Moreover sec.36 of I.D.Act was inequitable,because Advocates appearing for Unions could circumvent the section by becoming office bearer of the union,but it was not possible for Advocates appearing for employers to do so,because non employers could not become officers of employer's Association,because they were not employers.

1 Like

Kumar Doab (FIN)     23 March 2012

You have taken the right step.

Kumar Doab (FIN)     08 April 2012

God helps them who help themselves.

Persist and remain firm for your cause. You are doing good.Your efforts shall fetch you results.

The conduct of your employer as can be construed from your posts is bad and preturbing. It is an offender and should be tried and punished.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Recent Topics

View More

Related Threads