Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers: Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client

Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers: Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client

Case: Dhanya & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Coram: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 22937 OF 2021

Court Observation: “The duty of the lawyer is to take care of the interest of his client and to tell him the exact laws and provisions of the particular case and what are the remedies. He should not hurt the interest of his client by any of his acts and omissions… Even after this Court repeatedly alerted the lawyer that he is arguing against the interest of his client, the lawyer stick to his argument. Only God can save these types of lawyers. I leave it there.”

“First of all, there is no such case to the Municipality or to the petitioner. Moreover, the Government submitted a report before this Court in which it is stated that for conducting a Gymnasium, the licence is necessary as per The Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963. The Municipality is bound by the directions issued by the Government. Section 58 of The Kerala Municipality Act 1994 deals with the power of the Government to issue directions to Municipality. In such circumstances, according to me, the contention of the Counsel for the Municipality, which has no backing of his own client’s contention need not be considered.”

Previous Posts

Suspension Period Cannot Be Treated ‘Wholly Unjustified’ In Case Of Partial Exoneration: Gujarat High Court

Patents Act: Non-Consideration Of Grounds In Rejecting Pre-Grant Opposition Constitutes Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court

Payment Of Gratuity Act: Teachers Come Within The Preview of Employee U/S 2(e): Kerala High Court

Reopening of IT Assessment By Officer Having No Jurisdiction: Madras High Court Invalidates Proceedings

Repeated Sexual Activity With 9 Yr Old Child Not Possible Sans Any Injury In Vaginal/ Genital Area: JKL HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Gujarat Mining Rules | Locking Of Online ATR Account / Suspension Of Transit Permit Must Be Supported By Reasons In Writing: High Court

[Order VII Rule 11 CPC] Quantum Of Damages Can Only Be Decided After Trial, Not Ground To Reject Plaint: Delhi High Court

Employee Can’t Claim Equal Pay Due To Mere Similarity Of Designation Or Similarity Of Quantum Of Work: Supreme Court

Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court Download Judgement

Pension Scheme Can Be Claimed From Date Of Entering Into Service, Not Date Of Approval Of Regular Appointment: Madras High Court

High Court Cannot Control Day To Day Affairs Of Trial Court In Exercise Of Its Reversional Power: Delhi High Court