Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, SIDDHARTHA VARMA, JJ.
Vice Chancellor, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University Of Agriculture And Technology And Another – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And 11 Others – Respondent
Special Appeal Defective No. - 1073 of 2020
Decided on : 25-09-2024
IMPORTANT POINT
A lawyer must have specific authorization to bind their client to a settlement; statements made without such authority are not binding.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure - Delay Condonation - Recall Application - The court condoned the delay in filing the recall application and allowed the application for recall of the order dated 17.11.2020, modifying the previous order to reflect that the State had not authorized its counsel to state that no appeal would be filed. (Paras 3, 4, 14)
(B) Authority of Counsel - It was held that a lawyer must have specific authorization to bind their client to a compromise or settlement, and statements made without such authority cannot bind the client. (Paras 8, 13)
Facts of the case:
The State sought to recall an order dismissing a special appeal, arguing that its counsel had made a statement without proper authorization.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the earlier statement made by the State's counsel was not binding due to lack of authorization.
Issues: The main issues were whether the State's counsel had the authority to bind the State by stating no appeal would be filed and the implications of such a statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a lawyer cannot bind their client by statements made without express instructions, modifying the previous order accordingly.
Result: The recall application was allowed, and the previous order was modified.
JUDGMENT :
Civil Misc Delay Condonation Application No. Nill of 2021.
Civil Misc. Recall Application No.5 of 2021.
1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the applicant Sri Ashok Mehta assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi and the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/respondent Sri Anil Bhushan who was assisted by Sri Ashutosh Ganguly.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant alongwith application for condonation of delay and affidavit with a prayer for recalling the order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this Court.
3. The reasons shown in the application for condonation of delay, which is accompanied with an affidavit, are to the satisfaction of this Court. The delay in filing the recall application is hereby therefore condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
4. Writ A No.7885 of 2016 was allowed on 17.10.2019. Against this judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Vice Chancellor of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology and one another appellant i.e. the Finance Controller of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology had filed a defective special appeal being Special Appeal (Defective) No.1073 of 2020, in which on 17.11.2020 the following order was passed :-
"On going through the judgement impugned, it is apparent that the directions given by the learned Single Bench are for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The University (Appellants) are not going to suffer with any burden in the event of execution/directions given. As a matter of fact, the University at its own has recommended to have parity in the pay-scales among employees of the Universities, namely, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University, Meerut and Govind Vallabh Pant University, Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand.
In view of it, the University is having no cause to file the instant appeal. On asking the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that no appeal has been filed on behalf of the State and as a matter of fact, the State has decided not to file any appeal at its own by keeping the University at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.
In view of the statement given, it is apparent that the judgment impugned has attained finality so far as it relates for the State of U.P.. The University has already stated that they can't have any grievance with the judgment impugned and, therefore, looking to the circumstances noted above, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal.
Dismissed accordingly."
5. When the State realized that on certain issues, the judgment of the learned Single Judge had to be appealed against a defective special appeal being Special Appeal (Defective) No.298 of 2021 was filed in which on 15.06.2021 the following order was passed:-
"Matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Instead of pursuing this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of appeal with liberty to seek review/recall of order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.1073 of 2020 and a liberty that in case if the State succeeds in recall of said order, to revive the present appeal.
Prayer is allowed.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the said liberty. However, we make it clear that the question of limitation shall remain open even if the appeal succeeds in recall of order dated 17.11.2020 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.1073 of 2020. No costs."
6. Thereafter, the State has now filed the instant recall application for the recalling of the order dated 17.11.2020.
7. Learned counsel for the State Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195, Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and others (1998) 6 SCC 538, Union of India (UOI) and others Vs. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabiand others (2004) 3 SCC 628, Himalayan Cooperative Grup Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh (2015) 7 SCC 373, The Cha
