Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, Vinod Kumar, JJ
Delhi Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Ram Pal – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3296/2026 | CM APPL. 15940/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anurag Abhishek
For the Respondents:
A statement made by a legal counsel in court is generally binding on the client, and a party cannot unilaterally retract such a statement by claiming it was unauthorized, especially when the court refuses to modify the resulting order.
Headnote:(A) Professional Conduct - Statement by Counsel - Binding Nature - A statement made by a counsel in court, even if later claimed to be unauthorized by the client, continues to bind the party, particularly when a coordinate bench refuses to modify the order based on such a statement. (Para 8, 9)
Issues: Whether the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner to take the respondent back into service was binding despite the petitioner's subsequent claim that it was unauthorized.
O R D E R
1. This writ petition, at the instance of the Delhi Transport Corporation1“DTC”,hereinafter, assails judgment dated 14 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal2“theTribunal”,hereinafter in OA 806/2018.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal set aside the termination of the respondent from service as well as the order dismissing his appeal thereagainst and directed that the respondent be reinstated as a contractual Conductor with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
3. When this writ petition was first listed before a Coordinate Bench on 16 March 2026, learned Counsel appearing for the DTC specifically submitted, on instructions, that the respondent would be taken back into service on contractual basis. The DTC was, therefore, directed to place an affidavit on record to that effect.
4. No such affidavit was filed. Instead, by the very next date of hearing, i.e., 22 April 2026, the DTC decided to change Counsel who was appearing. Mr. Anurag Abhishek, who is before us today and who appeared on 22 April 2026 submitted that the statement made by the Counsel on 16 March 2026 to the effect that the respondent would be taken back in service, purportedly under instructions, was unauthorised as no such instructions had been issued to the Counsel.
5. We, therefore, deemed it appropriate to direct the DTC to obtain a clarification from the Bench which had passed the order of 16 March 2026.
6. The DTC, therefore, moved CM APPL. 42566/2026 for obtaining a clarification from the Coordinate Bench of the order dated 16 March 2026.
7. By order dated 24 July 2026, the Coordinate Bench has refused to modify or clarify the order dated 16 March 2026. CM APPL. 42566/2026 has been dismissed.
8. As a result, the statement made by the learned Counsel for the DTC on 16 March 2026 continues to bind.
9. In the circumstances, we do not find this to be a case in which any interim order of stay should be granted as that would be contrary to the statement made by the Counsel for the DTC before this Court on 16 March 2026.
10. In the circumstances, issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.
11. Notice be served on the respondent through Counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings.
12. Counter affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioners, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, within four weeks thereof.
13. Re-notify on 9 October 2026 before Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings.
CM APPL. 15940/2026 (for stay)
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, we decline to grant any stay of operation of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The application for stay is, therefore, dismissed.
15. Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal would, however, remain subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
