The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the principle that lawyers must respect their clients’ decision-making authority when providing undertakings before the court. The judgment was delivered in the case of Smt. Lavanya C & Anr. vs. Vittal Gurudas Pai & Ors. (CA No. 13999 of 2024, arising out of SLP(C) No. 13875 of 2021), where the appellants were found guilty of contempt for violating an undertaking given by their counsel in court.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute over a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) dated April 30, 2004, between the parties for the construction of residential apartments on a turnkey basis. The agreement mandated completion by October 31, 2006, but the project was not completed within the stipulated time. Consequently, the plaintiffs (respondents in the Supreme Court) issued a legal notice canceling the JDA on March 23, 2007, and subsequently filed Original Suit No. 4191 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the agreement stood revoked and terminated.
During the trial, the defendants, through their counsel, undertook before the court on two occasions—July 11, 2007, and August 13, 2007—that they would not alienate the suit property. However, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated this undertaking by executing multiple sale deeds despite the assurance given to the court. The trial court, in its order dated January 2, 2017, dismissed the plaintiffs’ case, holding that they had failed to prove their claims. The plaintiffs then filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, seeking action for violation of the undertaking.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues in the case were:
Whether the defendants had willfully disobeyed the undertaking given to the trial court.
Whether an undertaking given by an advocate binds the client even if the client did not explicitly authorize it.
Whether an advocate has an independent authority to provide undertakings without the express instruction of the client.
Whether the subsequent dismissal of the suit absolved the defendants from contempt proceedings.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol upheld the High Court’s ruling, which had set aside the trial court’s order and held the appellants guilty of contempt. The key observations of the Supreme Court included:
Lawyers act as fiduciaries and must follow their client’s instructions rather than making unilateral commitments before the court. The court emphasized:
“An advocate is bound to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorised agent before taking any action or making any statement or concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the legal rights of the client.”
Disobedience of a court undertaking is punishable regardless of subsequent developments in the case. The court reiterated the principle laid down in Samee Khan v. Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59, stating:
“Even if the injunction order was subsequently set aside, the disobedience does not get erased.”
Undertakings given in court have binding legal consequences. The court rejected the appellants’ claim that they were unaware of their counsel’s undertaking, noting:
“No advocate has actual authority to settle a case against the express instructions of his client. If he considers such express instructions contrary to the interests of his client, his remedy is to return his brief.”
Contempt jurisdiction is meant to uphold the authority of the judiciary. Citing Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, the bench observed:
“The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining ‘the jury, the judge, and the hangman’ and it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any claim between litigating parties.”
Final Order
The Supreme Court confirmed the High Court’s finding of contempt but modified the punishment. The original sentence included three months of civil imprisonment and attachment of the contemnors’ property for one year. However, considering the age of the appellants, particularly appellant No.1, who was 68 years old, the Supreme Court set aside the imprisonment while enhancing the compensation from ₹10 lakh to ₹13 lakh, payable with 6% interest from August 2, 2013.
