JAMILABAI ABDUL KADAR vs SHANKERLAL GULABCHAND & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that under the Advocates Act, 1961, a pleader has the authority to compromise a case on behalf of a client unless expressly restricted by the client. The Court emphasized that all legal practitioners, regardless of their designation, share the same responsibilities and powers in representing clients. It was determined that the absence of the client during the compromise does not invalidate the pleader's authority unless explicitly stated otherwise. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling that the compromise was binding.