Back
[2013(2) ADJ 675]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
GYAN SWAROOP .....Petitioner
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. 7, ALIGARH/MAC TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19827 of 2012, decided on 8th January, 2013)
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over professional conduct and misconduct of advocates, specifically relating to change of counsel and the associated procedural and ethical issues (!) (!) .
The petitioner initially filed a claim petition and sought to change his counsel due to unprofessional conduct by the previous advocate, filing a new Vakalatnama and requesting court permission for the change (!) (!) .
An objection was filed by respondent No. 3, claiming unpaid fees and asserting that without his consent, the petitioner could not engage a new advocate. The court below held that no other counsel could be engaged without the consent of the earlier counsel (!) (!) .
The court’s decision was based on the premise that the consent of the previous advocate was necessary for engaging a new counsel, which the petitioner challenged as contrary to established legal principles and the rights of a litigant to change counsel freely (!) (!) .
The court observed that the conduct of respondent No. 3, who claimed fees based on a percentage of the outcome and sought to obstruct the change of counsel, was unprofessional and misconductful. Such practices are condemned by higher courts and are contrary to the ethical standards expected of advocates (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the right of a litigant to change counsel is fundamental and protected by law, and that advocates are expected to act with integrity, maintaining the dignity of the profession and respecting the interests of their clients (!) (!) .
It was noted that charging fees based on percentage of the recovery and obstructing the client’s right to change counsel constitutes professional misconduct and is condemnable. Such conduct undermines the trust in the legal profession and the judicial system (!) (!) .
The court criticized the conduct of the judicial officer involved, who supported the objection and upheld the requirement of prior consent, calling it a breach of judicial propriety and a failure to adhere to established legal standards (!) (!) .
The court reaffirmed the principle that the cause of the litigant’s case is more important than the advocate’s remuneration, and that advocates must return case files when requested by clients who wish to change counsel, without undue restrictions or conditions (!) (!) .
The court held that the actions of the respondent advocates and the judicial officer lacked bona fide and were influenced by improper motives, warranting disciplinary and administrative review (!) (!) .
The court ordered the impugned order to be quashed, directed the respondent to pay costs, and recommended disciplinary action against the advocate and the judicial officer involved. It also emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and professionalism within the legal system (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding the rights of clients to change counsel, condemns unethical practices by advocates, and calls for strict adherence to the ethical standards and discipline within the legal profession.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner alongwith his sister, Smt. Nirmala Devi filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 07 of 2009 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) impleading one Sandeep Sharma son of Sri Satish Chandra Sharma and the Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as defendants.
2. The facts, in brief, are that another brother of claimant met an accident on 5.9.2008 while travelling in Bus No. UP 85 E-9372 and died. Hence, claim was filed for compensation. The petition was allowed by Tribunal and judgment was delivered by respondent No. 2, Sri Rajaram Saroj, Additional District Judge, Aligarh, the Presiding Officer of Tribunal on 1.8.2011. The Insurance Company came up in appeal, i.e., First Appeal From Order No. 3515 of 2011. The appeal was admitted on 1.11.2011 and Court passed following interim order:
“Heard on the question of grant of interim relief.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anshul Kumar Singhal holding brief for Shri V.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is directed that the operation of the impugned Award dated 1.8.2011 will remain stayed until further orders of the Court, provided within six weeks from today, the appellant deposits the entire amount awarded under the impugned Award together with interest thereon before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aligarh.
The amount so deposited by the appellant will be paid/invested as under :
(1) Out of the amount awarded respectively to each of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the impugned Award, Rs. 1,00,000/- each will paid respectively to each of such claimants-respondents without furnishing any security.
(2) Balance amount awarded respectively to each of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under the impugned Award, will be invested in maximum interest-bearing Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank, renewable from time to time, in the respective name of each of such claimants-respondents.
The amounts invested in Fixed Deposits, as per the directions given above, will not be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without leave of this Court. However, 50% of the periodical interest accruing on such Fixed Deposits, will be permitted to be withdrawn by the concerned claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as and when the same accrues. Balance 50% of the periodical interest accruing on such Fixed Deposits, will continue to be reinvested in the respective Fixed Deposits.
The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the present Appeal, will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the deposit to be made by the appellant, as directed above.
In the event of default on the part of the appellant in making the deposit as directed above, this interim order will stand automatically vacated.
Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit may be exchanged between the parties by the next date fixed in the matter.
List on 9.5.2012.”
3. The petitioner moved an application dated 6.1.2012 before Trial Court stating that he is changing counsel due to his (counsel’s) unprofessional conduct and filed Vakalatnama of another counsel, Chaudhary Rajeev Kumar, Advocate to conduct further pairavi in the case. The permission of Court to accept Vakalatnama of Sri Chaudhary Rajeev Kumar was also sought.
4. It appears that Sri J.P. Singh, Advocate, respondent No. 3, filed objection dated 21.2.2012 purporting to be under Order 3 Rule 4 C.P.C. read with Section 49-C of Advocates Act and Rule 39 of Indian Bar Council Rules, 1975 stating that his fees etc. have not been fully paid by petitioner and, therefore, in absence of any consent given by him, he is entitled to continue to represent petitioner, subject to a direction given to petitioner that he (petitio
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
