Supreme Court Permits Advocate to Use Proprietary Firm Style in Vakalatnama — Clarifies Registration Rules. The court ruled that an Advocate on Record could register under a proprietary firm style, affirming the validity of such designations in legal practice.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a petition by an Advocate on Record, Siddharth Murarka, who sought permission to register his practice under the name 'Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka' instead of his personal name. The petitioner argued that he faced disadvantages compared to partnership firms of Advocates, which could register under a firm name. During the proceedings, the court noted the petitioner's previous conduct in communication, which was deemed unacceptable, leading to his withdrawal of all prior complaints. The court, assisted by Amicus Curiae Kailash Vasdev, reviewed the historical context of the Supreme Court Rules, emphasizing that the legal profession is a profession rather than a business. The court found that the existing rules allowed for both individual Advocates on Record and firms, and thus, it was within the purview of the rule-making authorities to consider amendments for allowing sole proprietorship styles. Ultimately, the court ruled that the petitioner could use the style 'Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka' in his Vakalatnama, affirming that such a designation was permissible and would be recognized as valid (Paras 1-10).

Headnote

A) Legal Profession - Advocate on Record Registration - Permissibility of Proprietary Firm Style - Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV - The court examined if an Advocate on Record could use a proprietary firm style in their registration, concluding that such a style is permissible as long as it reflects the sole proprietorship of the Advocate. The court directed that the Vakalatnama filed under this style would be treated as valid, thus resolving the petitioner's grievance (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an Advocate on Record can register under a proprietary firm style instead of their personal name.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court permitted Siddharth Murarka to use the style 'Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka' in his Vakalatnama, affirming its validity.

Law Points

  • Advocate on Record
  • Proprietary Firm
  • Supreme Court Rules
  • Legal Profession
  • Registration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (01) 198

Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107/2020

2021-01-20

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy

Kailash Vasdev

Siddharth Murarka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition regarding the registration style of an Advocate on Record.

Remedy Sought

Siddharth Murarka sought permission to register under a proprietary firm style.

Filing Reason

Claim of disadvantage compared to partnership firms in registration.

Issues

Permissibility of using a proprietary firm style for registration Comparison of individual Advocates on Record with partnership firms

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued for equal treatment with partnership firms in registration. The Amicus Curiae emphasized the need for rule amendments to allow such styles.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the legal profession is a profession and not a business, allowing for the use of proprietary firm styles under the existing rules.

Judgment Excerpts

The question which we have formulated by our order dated 12.10.2020 is, whether an Advocate on Record can have entry in Advocate On Record register in the form of his style of carrying on profession. We are thus, of the view that writing 'Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO . 2151' is permissible style.

Procedural History

The petition was filed seeking clarity on the registration style of Advocates on Record, leading to hearings and the eventual ruling by the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 124, Article 145
  • Supreme Court Rules: Order IV, Rule 13, Rule 22, Rule 23, Rule 1(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Defamation Case — Upholds Publication as True Report. Citing that the publication was an accurate report of Assembly proceedings and served public interest, the court found no defamation.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Lease Dispute Over Arbitration Reference — High Court's Order Affirmed.