Is cousel is guilty?
Knowledge Gainer
(Querist) 08 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
Petitioner wife filed divorce case. As the case is in evidence stage, She has to file affidavit and produce evidence. Suppose wife files affidavit which subsequently proved to be wrong or her affidavit don't stand in the court then wife has to face action for perjury as well as filling false evidences. Counsel is also knowing this.
I would like to know that in this case her counsel is also equally guilty as facts mentioned in the affidavit are verified by counsel? If yes, than under which act and section?
I know giving answer to this query is tough for all experts and against professional ethics, but there are some counsel such as my wife's advocate who do wrong inspite of knowing the fact that whatever they are doing is false or has no legal validity. It is wasting of Court's valuable time also.
Thanks
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 October 2011
no lawyer is not guilty .
affidavit is made by wife on oath .
lawyer has not made false averments on oath .
lawyer meerely identifes client .
do not drag lawyers into your personal messy battles
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 08 October 2011
There is no question about guilty of lawyer in this case.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 08 October 2011
A counsel can not be imposed guilty for averment made by his/her client.
Guest
(Expert) 08 October 2011
the averment made in the affidvit are verified by the deponent and she signed the affidavit and the counsal is the mediator to to the court and to the party in the cases only and he have no concern with what the party is stating it is the responsibility of the party what he/ she is narrating to court.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 08 October 2011
:-) In India he is not guilty, as he was not supposed to verify the facts.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 October 2011
And unfortunately parties, court and counsels
in this case,all are Indians.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 08 October 2011
prabhakar singh ji! I was no expecting from you saying :unfortunately.......all are Indians:
It is our luck to be an Indian. India is a Nation where God also desire to take birth apart from crores of other specifications.
Knowledge Gainer
(Querist) 09 October 2011
Dear Experts
Once again Thx for reply.
In India Counsel is not guilty. So outside India Counsels are guilty in this case. If yes, then it is correct. As fear of punishment would not allow counsel to date and file such affidavit and evidences in the court.
I still remember that her counsel requested for adjournment on last hearing for the reason that her husband is not well so she could not attend and hence she wants adjournment for 10 days. I am appearing in person and I have no objection and on the contrary requested for one and half months adjournment and granted by the court.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 October 2011
DEAR AUTHOR !No where any one is called guilty without proof of charges framed against him.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 October 2011
@@Mr. Makkad!!! i am PROUD OF BEING AN INDIAN.
WHY DID NOT YOU READ THE ANSWER JUST ABOVE
ME WHICH PROMPTED ME TO REMARK SO.
HERE EVERY ONE IS INDIAN THEN THERE IS NO
POINT TO SAY THAT "IN INDIA HE IS NOT
GUILTY"!
THE PLAIN ANSWER COULD HAVE BEEN ,HE CAN BE
OR HE CAN NOT BE.BUT UNNECESSARY IMPORT OF "INDIA"
PROMPTED ME TO SPEAK IN A STYLE OF WHICH TRUE IMPORT
YOU COULD NOT GET BECAUSE YOU NEITHER READ THE QUERY
NOR THE ANSWER JUST ABOVE ME I KNOW YOUR INTENTION
IS NOT TENSED BUT YOUR SENTIMENT IS JUST BECAUSE OF
LABOR OF CONFUSION.
Guest
(Expert) 09 October 2011
Prabhakar ji, what wrong Shri Sonee Kapoor has said? I can say, there is nothing wrong in his statement, if he has pointed out towards the Indian system.
We all know that there definitely exists deficiency in law when several of the advocates, irrespective of acting unethically without the knowledge of their clients, or responsible to provoke their clients to act unethically, get scot free. In foreign countries advocates are equally held responsible for their unethical acts when caught doing so.
There is nothing wrong with India, but wrong rests with the actions/ activities of individuals or deficiency of man-made systems.
By the way, can you please enlighten us about what is the real sense of perjury and why it should be enforced one-sided (on client only), and why along with the client, the lawyer should also not be made accountable for false presentation of the case in a court of law, when the lawyer knows that he is misleading the court rather than assisting the court to unearth the truth?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 October 2011
Then Dhingra ji .what wrong you found in my any of reply or comment here that instead of taking pain to reply query you are so much sensitive to my every reply and instead of replying the author you are addressing me in reply to a post personally addressed to Mr.Makkad,it appears some mess is going on which i am unable to comprehend properly.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 09 October 2011
If in present every one living in India is fond of corruption,then collectively it would be called for expression's sake that is a wrong with India.
I have found here preachers out number the practicener.That is perhaps a great difficulty that people here preach only what they never practice;not Lawyers but Politics and politicians have been ruining the country and are still doing so.
your addressed made to me in your last para of post DOES GO TO PROVE THAT YOU NEITHER READ THE QUERY NOR INTENDED TO ANSWER THAT BUT YOU JUST INTENDED TO FORM A COMFORT POOL.HE IN FACT IS ASKING THAT IF EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED BY AFFIDAVIT IN COURT AND FINALLY THAT AFFIDAVIT IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT WHETHER ARE NOT HER LAWYER WOULD BE GUILTY OF PERJURY BECAUSE HE HAS ALSO VERIFIED THAT TO WHICH THE PLAIN ANSWER FROM ANY MAN WOULD BE NO???BE IT INDIA OR ELSE WHERE.
IT WOULD BE SO BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE FACTS RECORDED IN AFFIDAVIT THAT A LAWYER VERIFIES BUT IT IS THE SIGNATURE AND PERSONALITY OF DEPONENT THAT A LAWYER VERIFIES.
i would like to state that it is common knowledge that in every case of a crime either charges are false or the accused is wrong in not pleading guilty ;so also in a civil case either plaintiff or defendant is wrong.Can it be decided one sided at the lawyers end alone then why judges and courts are there???some time even people who acclaim of being academia looses there power to think rationally.
Every lawyer in his "guess" knows the truth but he can not legally and professionally deny a visiting client that he will not protect him.A doctor can not refuse treatment of a cancer patient saying that since you chewed tobacco knowingly hence i will not treat you.just like that is the position of a lawyers also.ARE THE THINGS CLEAR TO YOU dhigraji.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
Prabhakar ji,
I have never been sensitive to the so called your "every query", while you very well know I not only that dittoed several of your answers but also admired several others of your answers.
To be frank, I found several of your answers sarcastic in nature and critical of the asnwers of some other fellows, like you remarked on the answer of Mr. Shonee "And unfortunately parties, court and counsels, in this case,all are Indians" and thereafter in response to your answer by Shri Makkad, you just hinted towards the answer of Shri Shonee by saying "WHY DID NOT YOU READ THE ANSWER JUST ABOVE ME WHICH PROMPTED ME TO REMARK SO."
Now, for me you have stated, "instead of taking pain to reply query you are so much sensitive to my every reply." But, don't you feel that you did not take any pain to reply the question of the querist, rather preferred to make your controversial remark only on Shonee's answer, where he was quite right about India's position. THAT WAS DEFINITELT WRONG ANSWER ON YOUR PART. Where was the question of condemning the "parties, counsels and courts" by using the words "unfortunately."
Only your sarcastic remarks about "parties, counsels and courts" and thereafter your reply to the post of Shri Makkad prompted to raise query on your own remarks.
In your reply to Shri Makkad, you have stated, "THE PLAIN ANSWER COULD HAVE BEEN ,HE CAN BE OR HE CAN NOT BE.BUT UNNECESSARY IMPORT OF "INDIA."
This clearly indicates your desire that the answers of all other experts should be only to your taste, not as per their own opinions and thoughts. If Mr. Shonee has stated position about India, what was wrong in his answer and where was the need to say "UNFORTUNATELY" about all that?
By all this don't you feel that you were quite sensitive to not only the reply of Mr. Shonee, but also to the post of Shri Makkad, what to say of my query addressed to you?
Even now you did not feel any necessity to review your own remarks instead of reply to the question.
Had you not agrreable to the answer of Shri Sonee, you could well have given right answer to the question raised by the querist instead of passing sarcastic remarks on the answer of Mr. Shonee and condemning parties, counsels and court.
IN FACT, IN THE WHOLE THREAD ONLY YOUR POST HAS RAISED A CONTROVERSY BUT STILL YOU FEEL BAD ABOUT OTHERS.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
SKJ,
Why asking others, why don't you try, yourself, to throw me out?
When you have been challenged on your wrong and misleading advices to the qerists and you failed desperately to reply any of my legal points on various threads, you have shown just hatred and jealousy against me and nothing else. But, still you feel yourself as expert, as if law is your personal property.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
SKJ,
Just point out which of my replies were false or misleading, while I can point out several of your replies just misleading, while you treat yourself as a legal expert. I feel you are the cause of disgrace to the legal experts on this site when you make misleading posts, on which you have been challenged several times to which you never replied with reference to law.
YOUR OWN FALSE IDENTITY AND FALSE PICTURE ARE THE PROOF OF YOUR OWN FLSEHOOD.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
SKJ,
YOU ARE JUST A FRUSTRATED LOT, AS YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY REPLY TO ANY OF MY QUESTIONED POSED ON YOU THROUGH SEVERAL THREADS. your personal hatred towards me cannot do any good to you.
In any of your three posts on this page, you have not answered to the question of the querist. WHY DID NOT YOU COME WITH THE CORRECT ANSWER?
YOUR OWN FALSE IDENTITY AND FALSE PICTURE ARE THE PROOF OF YOUR OWN FLSEHOOD, WHICH YOU FREQUENTLY CHANGE, AS I POINTED OUT ON SEVERAL OTHER THREADS, SO THAT YOU COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED FOR YOUR MISLEADING ANSWERS. On the contrary, I always reply with my true identity.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
SKJ,
Laymen are those, who just harp on the same tune repeatedly instead of replying to the questions on the issue, like you, but still claim to be expert.
Guest
(Expert) 10 October 2011
SKJ,
May I be nobody or anybody, but you have not tried to justify yourself to prove some real body by replacing your fake identity and picture with your real identity and photo, and have also not replied to any of my questioned posed on you in several threads, where you always tried to misguide others. I have never abused you, rather you have always tried to abuse me without challenging any of my replies on legal grounds, while I always asked justification of your answer based on law, your fake identity, your intention to mislead and misguide the community at large.
THE QUESTION ARISES, DID THE QUERIST OR ANY ONE OF THE EXPERTS INVITE YOU TO GIVE YOUR OPINION OR REVIEW ABOUT ME OR MY REPLY TO THE QUESTION? YOU JUST TRIED TO POKE YOUR NOSE CLEARLY TO ABUSE ME BY TARGETTING ME, WHILE YOU DID NOT GIVE ANY ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION OR CHALLENGE MY REPLY ON ANY LEGAL GROUND. THIS ITSELF IS AN OPEN PROOF AGAINST YOU THAT ONLY YOU ABUSED ME UNPROVOKED & INTENTIONALLY.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 24 January 2012
lAWYERS IS NOT GUILTY.
MR . HUSBAND KNOWLEDGE GAINER, JUST DIVORCE HER.
WHY U WANT TO RESIST HER DIVORCE PETITION??
DON'T BEG
Adv Shroff
