Pravin C. Shah v K.A. Mohd. Ali
Rule established
An advocate holding a full-time salaried employment cannot practise; dual capacity is impermissible under the Advocates Act.
Facts
- A person enrolled as an advocate was simultaneously holding full-time salaried employment. Questions arose about whether such a person could sign vakalatnamas and appear in court.
Issue
- Whether a person enrolled as an advocate but holding full-time salaried employment is entitled to practise law.
Held
- The Supreme Court held that an advocate in full-time employment cannot practise. The right to practise under the Advocates Act is available only to those who are actually practising and not engaged in any other full-time occupation. A person in employment may retain enrollment but cannot exercise the right to practise until they leave employment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that an advocate in full-time employment cannot practise. The right to practise under the Advocates Act is available only to those who are actually practising and not engaged in any other full-time occupation. A person in employment may retain enrollment but cannot exercise the right to practise until they leave employment.
How to use it in an exam
Source
Source: (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 650
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.