SANJEET RATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 2/9/2022, Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.A/A 067/2019, Common Room No.3, Mobile No. 9415653155 is present before this Court along with Mr. Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.A/V 0108/2012, Chamber/Seat No.1, Mobile No. 9415291367.

(2.) Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.0A/A 0578/2012 to be read as Amit Kumar Srivastava-1 and Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, Advocate Roll No.A/A 067/2019 to be read as Amit Kumar Srivastava-2.

(3.) As informed by Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate AoR No.0A/A 0578/2012, Mobile No.9415217295 that counsel bearing the same name has misguided his client, using his name and has filed his Vakalatnama in the present case. Explanation was sought from the aforesaid counsels and they informed that the district Court counsel had asked Mr. Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocate to engage Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-1 as counsel, therefore, he approached him, however, due to the high engagement fees as asked by him, he engaged Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-2. When the client approached Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-1 then he came to know about engagement of Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava-2 by Mr. Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.