The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a contempt application, ruling that a statement made by a counsel before the court without specific instructions from the client cannot be treated as a binding undertaking regarding the sale of property.
Justice Manish Kumar held that lawyers are expected to follow their client’s instructions rather than substitute their own judgment, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh and others (2015).
Background of the Case
The contempt application was filed by Ram Shanker Shukla and another, alleging non-compliance with the judgment and order dated September 2, 2009, passed in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2009.
In the 2009 order, the Division Bench had set aside an order passed by a Single Judge and remitted the matter for a fresh decision. The order recorded a statement by the counsel for the appellant (Opposite Party No. 1 in the present contempt case):
“At this juncture the counsel for the appellant says that the appellant does not intend to sell any property nor is going to sell the same.”
The applicants alleged that despite this “undertaking” given before the Appellate Court, the opposite party executed sale deeds on December 23, 2009, and December 24, 2009. The applicants argued that the opposite party was not supposed to sell the property in light of the statement and a previous interim order dated July 27, 2009, which had directed parties not to change the nature of the property.
Arguments Placed Before the Court
The counsel for the applicants submitted that the execution of sale deeds constituted a willful violation of the undertaking given to the Court. They argued that the statement made before the Appellate Court should be read in conjunction with the interim order dated July 27, 2009, to establish that a bar on creating third-party rights existed.
Per contra, the counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 contended that no such undertaking was ever given by the respondent personally, nor had he instructed his counsel to make such a statement.
In his reply to the charge, Opposite Party No. 1 stated on affidavit that the statement given by his counsel was not within his knowledge, and had he known, he would not have sold the property. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh and others, arguing that a lawyer has no implied authority to bind a client to a compromise or concession without specific authorization.
It was further submitted that the writ petition itself was withdrawn by the applicant on January 11, 2010.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After reviewing the record, Justice Manish Kumar noted that the Appellate Court’s order merely recorded that the counsel “says that” the appellant did not intend to sell the property.
“There is nothing on record that the counsel was instructed by the respondent no. 1 to give any undertaking before the Appellate Court. It is the counsel who seems to have stated before the Appellate Court on his own,” the Court observed.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society, the High Court reiterated that lawyers act as fiduciaries and agents who must respect the client’s autonomy. The Court quoted the apex court:
“Therefore, it is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority conferred on him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorised agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client.”
The Court rejected the applicant’s argument to read the counsel’s statement in conjunction with the interim order dated July 27, 2009. Justice Kumar pointed out that the Appellate Court, in its order dated September 2, 2009, had set aside the Single Judge’s order (which included the interim relief) while remitting the matter. Thus, the interim order could not be read along with the appellate proceedings as it was no longer in existence.
The Court concluded that the case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the extent of a counsel’s authority. Furthermore, the Court noted that the writ petition was withdrawn shortly thereafter, and during the relevant period, no interim order was in force.
“In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made out against the respondent no. 1,” the Court held.
Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed, the notices were discharged, and the charges framed against the respondent were withdrawn.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ram Shanker Shukla And Another Vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors.
- Case Number: Contempt Application (Civil) No. 99 of 2010
- Judge: Justice Manish Kumar
- Counsel for Applicants: Anurag Srivastava, Abhishek Singh, Anand Dubey, Anurag Kumar Dixit
- Counsel for Opposite Parties: Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Pritish Kumar, Indrapal Singh, N.L. Pandey, Pt. S. Chandra, R.S. Tripathi, S.N. Tilhari, Vivek Sarswal
