IMPORTANT POINT
An AOR cannot lend his signature for consideration.

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2005, Mohamed Israfil v. Raufunessa Bibi (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., was dismissed in default vide order dated 8.3.2013 as none appeared to press the appeal. An application for restoration of the said appeal was filed by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocate-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as AOR). The said application was listed in the Court on 8.7.2013. The Court was of the view that the facts contained in the application were not correct and the counsel appearing for the applicant was not able to clarify the same. The Court passed over the matter and asked the counsel appearing therein to call the AOR who would be able to explain the factual controversy. When the matter was taken up in the second round, the Court was informed that Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR refused to come to the Court. It has also been pointed out that the said AOR has filed extremely large number of cases in this Court but never appears in the Court. In view of the refusal of the AOR to come to the Court, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the application. However, the Court issued a show cause notice to the said AOR as to why his name should not be removed from the register of AsOR, as his conduct was ‘unbecoming’ of an AOR. Prima facie, his conduct would tantamount to interfering with the administration of justice. Being an AOR, he ought to have appreciated that the institution of AsOR has been created under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and no one can appear in this Court except by the authority of an AOR; or unless instructed by an AOR. Considering the gravity of the issue involved herein, this Court also requested the Association of AsOR, through its President and Secretary, to assist the Court in dealing with this situation as our experience has been that some AsOR, who have filed a large number of cases have been lending their signatures for consideration and take no responsibility for the matter and never appear in the Court.

2. In response to the same, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR has filed his reply tendering an absolute and unconditional apology and has given an undertaking that he would not repeat such a mistake again in future. He has also given many reasons for not appearing in the Court but none of them has impressed us and none of them is worth mentioning herein. It is not that he has entered appearance in very few cases; the information received reveals that Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal has entered appearance in as many as 1678 cases in the year 2010, in 1423 cases in the year 2011, and in 1489 cases in the year 2012. Upto 19.7.2013, he has entered appearance in 922 cases. The number of cases filed by him is too big.

3. In Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suhas Jayant Natawadkar, (2010) 1 SCC 166, this Court made an attempt to deal with the menace of lending of signatures for a petty amount by a few AsOR without any sense of responsibility and rendering any assistance to the Court. The record reveals that the matter stood subsequently dismissed on some other grounds. However, the issue of conduct of an AOR, particularly in respect of name lending was referred to the Supreme Court Rules Committee vide order dated 12.10.2011.

4. Relevant rules for the purpose of adjudicating upon the issue involved herein are contained in Order IV of the Rules, which read as under:

“4. Any advocate not being a senior advocate may, on his fulfilling the conditions laid down in rule 5, be registered in the Court as an advocate on record:

xxx xxx x xx x xx xxx

6. (a) An advocate on record shall, on his filing a memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by the party, be entitled-

(i) to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and prosecute before the Court all proceedings that may be taken in respect of the said matter or any application connected with the same or …

xxx xxx x xx x xx xxx

(b)