General power of attorney

Only relevant party in person can appear in his own matter, except in legal person concepts that is a compant and like the constituted attorney can appear sir!

in the case like yours only advocate need to be instructed not GPA holder can appear!

constituted attorny is possible under company's act as company is a legal person but individual cases individual person only can appear please hope u got i believe sir!

Now, I am going to put-forth my conclusion, after having weighed several perspectives.

True, a POA holder i.e. an agent cannot replace the principal in the witness box. Certainly not, when the aspect required to be judged or questioned relates to something that the principal himself is competent to narrate or explain. While being crossed or while deposing about events known only to his person, which cannot be efficiently conveyed through another, personal events wherein an examiner requires the actual person for questioning, etc .. hope this is clear.

Reference has been made to: 

Shambhu Dutt Shastri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 2 WLN 713 (Raj).

However, the above principle does not apply to situations wherein the agent acts on behalf of the principal through an allowable agency. That includes, signing of documents, authenticating within procedures, agreeing, affirming, crediting or depositing, appearing formally etc.

WHEREFORE, a POA holder can certainly appear and plead or pray on behalf of the principal. A POA holder can definitely and absolutely represent his principal in legal proceedings, likewise on his behalf, as a 'party-in-person'.

I did check this up with a few reputed 'senior counsels', that my Dad introduced me to. They also told me about situations and circumstances wherein, such representation as a 'party-in-person' has been done at the high-court, in several instances.

So, that should leave no more doubts about whether a POA holder can represent his principal, as a 'party-in-person'.

Yes, it is permissible.

Only when it requires a person to appear or depose in a witness box during court proceedings, he cannot rely on a POA, but has to appear in person.

You have an answer for your query, what is that you want to further clarify?   This is a well settled law that the agent cannot depose evidence on behalf of his principal in the witness box on those issues which are known only to the principal, what is that you want to say here, are you cross verifying the advocates talents here?

only karta of HUF can appear and h can appoint an advocate only in his place, not any friend or others pls, HUF is not a company under company law, Karta is created under Hindu law only!

Kalaiselvan Sir,

Certainly not!  Why would I waste another's precious time by doing such a thing!

Every-time I post a query, I am genuinely seeking assistance or some guidance bolstered by an insight!

However, all along and in the meanwhile, I try to research the matter by myself also.

So, if I do find a solution or a relevant answer or a citation, I make it a point to post it here, for everyone's reference. That is all.

Fact is, I have several other queries that I have posted out here, the answers to which I am yet to find. And I really do appreciate any assistance that I am offered.

All said and done, I do expect a high degree of competence and deduction, being as it is a forum for advocates, for whom I carry immense respect.

Trust me, all the queries I post are indeed situations that I am facing in reality, currently being vehemently contested in a court of law.

G. Balakrishnan Sir,

I hope you know the fact that there is indeed a separate and specific PAN alloted to the karta of a HUF.

Well, that sets the tone for considering the taxable income of such HUF, which by all means is an arena of commerce, taxation and business. Nevertheless, of other aspects of hindu law.

Now, when the concept of a legal person is taken up, it is the company, a collective enterprise, that is brought within the realm of liability per se and hence the position of a company secretary or a legal counsel in order to represent the company and its share-holders, singularly, as a juridic person, a legal entity capable of suing and be sued. However, it is not as romantic as 'lifting a veil', corporate in kind, as perceived by a few of our eminent jurists.

Fact remains that the 'East India Company' has been there and done that. MNCs marketing arms have a lot to thank them for!! Hence, our countrymen who have boldly allowed foreign investment and participation in our arms sector, will be that much more smarter and shrewd, the further they stay away from wars and conflicts. 

It is, in fact, a capitalist ruse to limit the liability of money i.e. finders always keep!!! Snatchers too, rest explained away while the gas bills keep getting duly paid.

So, I would not be so hasty in setting aside an HUF as having nothing in common with the workings of a company, so to speak.

Instead it is the company that is seen in the light of a legal entity and not the other way around, as you seem to suggest! Give it a thought. I have healthy intentions in furthering this conversation.

Mr or Ms. Boffa: please note that my intention was of course not to hurt you, in fact I really appreciate your frankness. My contention was that since you have given a wonderful explanation and answer to your own query, what made you to approach this forum for that.  But you say that you are making a research on the said topic but the other way you say that it is a real problem you face and expect competence in reply.  Please understand one thing that though many experts are more competent and have more better knowledge on the subject, it is not that all of them will come out with everything openly in this forum, for the obvious reasons which cannot be spoken openly.  So it is better you contact a competent person (whom you confide in) privately f you are interested to gather substance for your research topic.