The judge noted that the original GPA did not confer any interest in the subject property upon the agent, and therefore it could not survive the death of the principal
Hyderabad: Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court has ruled that a civil suit cannot be maintained based on a General Power of Attorney (GPA) if the person was not alive at the time of filing the suit. The judge allowed a civil revision petition filed by M/s Siri Sampada Constructions and set aside the trial court’s order refusing to reject a suit filed through a lapsed power of attorney. The judge held that the suit instituted in February 2023 was not maintainable, as the principal had passed away in November 2020 and the power of attorney ceased to subsist on the date of filing. The judge was hearing a civil revision petition challenging the maintainability of a civil suit filed in 2023 by one Florence V. Butz through her GPA holder after her death. Shyam S. Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner argued that GPA was executed on August 9, 2019, but the principal (Florence V. Butz) passed away on November 23, 2020. The suit, however, was instituted later on February 16, 2023, when the original GPA had already lapsed due to the principal’s death. The GPA holder himself admitted in court proceedings that he learned about her demise only in July 2023, after which a fresh GPA was executed by the plaintiff’s daughter. The trial court earlier rejected the petitioner’s plea to dismiss the suit, reasoning that the GPA was coupled with interest and therefore survived the death of the principal. It had referred to the plaint and relied on Section 3 of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882 and Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 to support its conclusion. However, Justice Alishetty held that the trial court’s findings were perverse and based on a misreading of the law. The judge noted that the original GPA did not confer any interest in the subject property upon the agent, and therefore it could not survive the death of the principal. Observing that the suit was instituted without a valid subsisting power of attorney, the judge ruled that the institution of the suit itself was invalid, and the proceedings were without authority. Accordingly, the judge allowed the civil revision petition and rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff.
HC imposes cost of Rs 10,000 on advocate
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate while dismissing a writ petition seeking directions to register a complaint against an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi for allegedly practicing before the Telangana High Court without proper authorisation. The judge imposed costs on the petitioner for misusing the writ jurisdiction and bypassing the remedy available under the Advocates Act, 1961. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by advocate Vipul Garg, who alleged that advocate Anil Kumar Kohli, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, regularly appeared before the Telangana High Court by filing vakalatnamas in various matters without obtaining verification or permission from the Bar Council of Telangana. The petitioner submitted a complaint in 2024 before the Bar Council of Delhi, Bar Council of India, and other authorities. Though the Bar Council of Delhi initiated action against the respondent, the petitioner, aggrieved by what he considered inaction, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and approached the Telangana High Court. It was contended that the respondent’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and warranted disciplinary proceedings. However, the judge observed that under Section 6(1)(d) of the Act, only the State Bar Council where an advocate is enrolled can entertain and deal with complaints of professional misconduct. Since the respondent’s name stood on the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi, the Bar Council of Telangana lacked jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings. The judge further noted that under the Act, the power to initiate disciplinary action lies solely with the Bar Council where the concerned advocate is enrolled. The judge held that the petitioner lacked locus standi and approached the Court without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy. The judge referred to Rule 3, Chapter III, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which mandates that an advocate intending to practice outside the jurisdiction of their enrolment must comply with verification procedures. Any violation must be addressed by the appropriate State Bar Council. Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the invocation of Article 226, the judge dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pay costs to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority. The judge further noted that the petitioner, being an advocate himself, abused the process of law and misused judicial proceedings.
Group-I exams again under HC radar
Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea filed by five candidates who appeared for the Group-I Services Mains Examination conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC), challenging alleged irregularities in the evaluation process and the publication of the General Ranking List. Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao admitted a writ plea filed by Chinthalapati Upender and four others, assailing the conduct of the Mains examination held between October 21 and October 27, 2024, pursuant to Notification No. 02/2024 dated February 19, 2024. The petitioners contended that the evaluation of answer scripts was carried out in an unscientific and arbitrary manner, resulting in grave irregularities and discrimination among candidates based on the medium in which they wrote the examination, Telugu, English, or Urdu. It was contended that the resulting General Ranking List was riddled with discrepancies and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners also alleged that the TGPSC failed to adhere to procedures laid down in the recruitment notification and sought a direction for re-evaluation of all papers, issuance of a fresh General Ranking List, and an independent enquiry into the irregularities by an external agency. The matter will be listed after two weeks for further hearing.
PIL for regulating escalators
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will now examine the need for a law to monitor safety of elevators and lifts. The court treated a letter addressed to it as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation. The said person today moved an application seeking leave of the court to assist the court in the matter. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara allowed the said petition and posted the matter after four weeks.
