Table of Contents Subscribe Misconducts of advocate Litigant Should Not Be Made To Suffer Because Of the fault and misconducts of a Lawyers In a case relating to insurance claim, the Supreme Court observed that a litigant should not be made to suffer because of a fault of the counsel. that only due to the fault of counsel, a party should not be made to suffer. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing a plea against NCDRC judgment which denied insurance claim. In this case, NCDRC had previously held that since the complaint was withdrawn, no fresh complaint could’ve been filed, as it was barred under Order XXIII Rule (1) (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure1 (CPC) Before the district forum, the counsel had submitted “I, Surender Kumar Gulia, Advocate, state that I do not want to proceed with my case. It may be dismissed. The district forum disposed of the claim recording his statement of withdrawal. The claimant filed a fresh complaint and stated that the withdrawal was made by mistake by his counsel. The court observed that “The said complaint was withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, without having express instructions for withdrawal of the said complaint. However, for the fault of the advocate, the complainant cannot be made to suffer”. Thus, the complaint cannot be thrown out on the threshold of Order XXIII Rule (1)(4) CPC and in the peculiar facts, it requires consideration on merits, observed the Court. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The appellant was the owner of a truck having a valid insurance policy for 8,40,000 from 2008 to 2009. On 26th June 2008, the appellant’s vehicle was stolen when the driver left the key on and got off the vehicle to enquire about a person. He filed an FIR and intimated the respondent about the theft to claim insurance. He filed a complaint before the district forum which awarded him 75% of the assured sum on a nonstandard basis. State commission affirmed the same. But NCDRC rejected his claim. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Supreme Court. ViewJudgment Punishment for filling vague petition to consume court time and to Harass innocent In the case Biswajit Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha & others, CRLMP No.791 of 2022 THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK held that ; The petitioner, who is masquerading himself as an R.T.I. Activist / Social Activist, has no business to file the F.I.R. against one Reader in Zoology Department in A.D. Mahavidyalaya, Brahmagiri, Puri especially when the Government is looking into the issue raised by him. He has still shown over alacrity by filing a complaint before the police which was not accepted by the police. It is pertinent to mention here that an enquiry has already been initiated by the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Odisha. Since the Regional Director has already conducted an enquiry and rendered the findings and submitted the same before the appropriate authority. Now the Department of Higher Education is in seisin over the matter, person like the present petitioner is unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court by filing this type of case. The petitioner can be classified as meddlesome interloper. He has deliberately tried to consume the time of court with a vested interest which has stopped the court from delivering justice to legitimate petitioners whose rights have actually been violated. In the landmark case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar 1 the Supreme Court of India had articulated that any attempt to misuse the legal system by the litigant must be negatively seen by the court and in order to deter others from doing the same exemplary cost must be imposed In such view of the matter, the petitioner is imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as a deterrent measure to discourage such frivolous petitions and not to repeat such type of misadventure in future. The said cost shall be deposited before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund within two weeks from today and the receipt thereof shall be filed before this Court. View Orissa High Court Judgment View Supreme court Judgement Lawyers should uphold the Constitution Law is a Noble Profession Law Is A Noble Profession, When Entrusted With A Brief, A Lawyer Should Try To Protect Clients’ Interests: Kerala HC The Kerala High Court made a series of crucial statements on the status and duties of lawyers. The Kerala High Court made a series of crucial statements on the status and duties of lawyers vis-avis their clients and the administration of justice in general. Culling the principles from case law, Justice R Narayana Pisharadi said, “When a lawyer is entrusted with a brief, he is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his clients, in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust” Iterating a lawyer’s nodal role in the administration of justice, the Court said, “In the administration of law and justice, lawyers have to play an important part. They are, in a sense, officers of the court and as such they are given special rights and privileges…” The Court’s remarks came in the course of an order dismissing a lawyer’s petition seeking a quash of criminal breach of trust proceedings against him. The lawyer was a legal officer in M/s Cherupushpam Kuries (a kind of chit fund) and was tasked with instituting recovery proceedings on amounts owed by its members. The company alleged that he misappropriated funds demarcated for instituting suits and provided false suit numbers to the company as if he had instituted the suits. Challenging the criminal breach of trust proceedings against him by the company, the counsel for the petitioner averred that he had been defrauded by his clerk. The petitioner insisted that he had attempted to institute proceedings after the clerk’s fraud was discovered. Justice Pisharadi, however, held that the veracity of
