Table of Contents
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In this case, NCDRC had previously held that since the complaint was withdrawn, no fresh complaint could’ve been filed, as it was barred under Order XXIII Rule (1) (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure1 (CPC)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The court observed that “The said complaint was withdrawn by the advocate of the complainant on the pretext of the case being prolonged by the advocate of the Insurance Company, without having express instructions for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”.
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.
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.
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 the petitioner’s submissions could be decided only at trial and not in a quash proceeding. For the proceedings at hand, there seemed a prima facie case disclosed, the Court concluded,
Since the petitioner in the case was a lawyer, the Court used the occasion to make the following observations about lawyers and their duties towards the law and clients:
1. Lawyers as officers of the court have special rights and privileges, which had to be zealously safeguarded. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand
2. Law is a noble profession, monopoly conferred on the the legal profession by Parliament is coupled with a responsibility towards the clients. V.C. Rangadurai v. D.Gopalan
3. Nothing was to be done by any member of the fraternity to lessen the confidence the public reposed in its fidelity, honesty, and integrity. V.C. Rangadurai v. D.Gopalan
With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition
Legal Misadventure by a Lawyer is strictly prohibited.
A Lawyer Should Become a Problem Solver,
A Conflict Manager.
Litigation is Only A Subset of Lawyering Skills
“A Lawyer Should Become a Problem Solver, A Conflict Manager. Litigation is Only A Subset of Lawyering Skills: Justice L Nageswara Rao.
“A lawyer should become a problem solver, a conflict manager. Litigation is only a subset of lawyering skills,” said Justice L Nageswara Rao on Saturday while pondering over the possible opportunities and challenges that lawyers may face in the post-modern era.
Justice Rao was speaking at a lecture on the topic ‘Post Modern Lawyering – Opportunities and Challenges’ organized by Kerala Law Academy and CG3 to mark Dr N Narayanan Nair’s first memorial.
The Supreme Court Judge began his speech by differentiating between a lawyer and an advocate. While a lawyer is a law graduate, an advocate is a person registered under the Advocates Act and has a license to appear in courts, he pointed out. But generally, lawyers are often associated with advocates and these words are interchangeably used.
However, Justice Rao promoted the idea that lawyering might be of more significance in the post modern era.
“Lawyers of my age when I joined the profession were people who got into the profession because they couldn’t get into any other profession. That was the norm. They may have been people who were serious about legal education but it was unusual back then.”
“The client had no say; they blindly followed whatever the lawyer said. And my practical experience is that most of the lawyers often experimented on their clients due to their lack of learning.”
“It’s like the client is involving himself in the resolution of his own dispute, thereby leaving him more satisfied with the outcome.”
Justice Rao then moved on to highlight that a lawyer should always know his life is a life of learning. There is no place for a half-baked advocate in the legal profession if he is true to his conscience, he said.
The lecture then correlated the legal profession by itself as the way to public service. The Judge remarked that the legal profession is not the livelihood of a lawyer and that his/her duty was to uphold the law, and that is why they are described as the foot soldiers of the Constitution. He added that to win the confidence of the litigant public in the institution, they have to be assured of a speedy and economic resolution of their disputes and impartial dispensation of justice.
In this context, Justice Rao moved on to the concept of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) to launch his proposition that in the era of post modern lawyering, aspirants of the legal profession may have to branch out and find other ways of lawyering apart from traditional litigation.
“While talking about post-modern lawyering, I foresee a situation where a growing number of lawyers would have to find diverse methods of lawyering not only for public service but also for their survival.”
One such method, he pointed out, which has been advocated is Dispute Resolution Scheme. Justice Rao reminded the legal community that a person who argues matters in courts is only discharging one of the lawyer’s duties. A lawyer and advocate should not be restricted to find solutions by litigating in court, he asserted.
Justice Rao gave examples of how matters get worse when they reach the court in litigation, particularly in service and matrimonial cases while urging lawyers to start analysing the dispute before deciding to take it to court straight away. He opined that litigation often unnecessarily drifts the parties away from each other by complicating the dispute and bringing in irrelevant issues between them. Lawyers and advocates have to undergo a change in the foreseeable future, he said.
“Lawyers would survive only when they step away from litigation and courts and become problem solvers.”
The Supreme Court Judge also recollected an article where they predicted that there might come a time when a courtroom may not exist anymore and where everything would be done online. Therefore, he encouraged the youngsters who are looking ahead to change with the times.
Technology is indispensable; digital literacy cannot be avoided, he emphasised.
The Judge then talked about another aspect which plays a crucial role in post modern lawyering; legal education. Since future lawyers are moulded in law schools, he opined that change should begin here. Legal instruction has to take into account that local and national borders no longer significantly influence how a matter is to be litigated, he said.
“Accordingly, law students should be trained to approach issues of law not only from a local lens. Law schools should provide education in a core curriculum but to produce people who can successfully deliver legal services, they should go beyond core legal training. Law schools should encourage experimentation and diversity. Law schools have to recognise learning about non-legal substantive issues is equally important. One will be able to best aid a client if they have a better idea of the subject matter.”
While commenting on specializing, Justice Rao noted that lawyers coming out of Kerala to Delhi have branched out to specialised fields of law and that they are doing extremely well in their chosen fields. Therefore, he concluded that the only way a post-modern lawyer can survive is by being innovative and finding out what is the future of law.
He motivated post modern lawyers to look ahead and not be stuck in what the lawyers in the 1960s were doing.Times have changed. People have to change their mindsets and follow new techniques of lawyering, he concluded.
A Lawyer cannot take clients for a ride as courts are not picnic spots.
The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned an advocate against filing petitions related to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) under the garb of Article 32 writ petitions
[Dharmraj Singh v. State of Bihar and ors].
A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna asked Advocate Chand Qureshi to not treat the Court in such a way, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Justice Chandrachud said,
“What is bothering us is clients are being taken for a ride. You are filing this plea because you are sceptical of the District Magistrate!“
Section 482 of the CrPC deals with the inherent powers of High Courts, which includes the power to quash first information reports (FIRs), to secure the ends of justice. Article 32 deals with remedies for the enforcement of rights before the Supreme Court that includes its power to issue writs.
The Supreme Court in August last year had held that High Courts, while deciding applications under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of case at the stage of framing of charges, should not enter into appreciation of the evidence or consider whether on the basis of such evidence the accused is likely to be convicted or not.
In September, the top court had said that under the said Section, High Courts can quash criminal proceedings even with respect to non-compoundable offences, after taking into account the nature and heinousness of the offence and other factual aspects.
