Back
Cannot From Counsel's Settlement Statements:
The has firmly ruled that a litigant cannot disown statements made by its counsel in court, dismissing a petition by that sought to set aside a Lok Adalat award disposing of a cheque bounce case as . Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the bank's attempt to from the settlement statements made by its own advocate was an "" and would create a "" if permitted.
A Loan, a Dishonoured Cheque, and a Misunderstood Settlement
The dispute traces back to , when the bank sanctioned a loan of ₹14.5 lakh to the respondents, secured by a mortgage and a post-dated cheque. After the borrowers defaulted and the account was declared a non-performing asset, the bank presented the cheque in , which was dishonoured with the remark "Refer to Drawer." A complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the followed.
During the pendency of the complaint, the bank's counsel informed the on that the matter had been settled and the bank had received the full payment. The case was referred to the , where on , the same counsel again stated that the entire settlement amount had been received, leading to the complaint being disposed of as and the respondents acquitted.
Bank's Change of Heart and the Court's Scrutiny
More than a year later, on , the bank moved an application for revival of the complaint, claiming that the counsel's statements were made under "immense confusion" and without authority. The JMFC dismissed the application, prompting the bank to approach the High Court under .
The bank argued that its then counsel had misunderstood instructions and that no actual settlement or payment had ever taken place. However, Justice Banerjee noted that the same counsel continued to represent the bank even after the alleged misconduct, and no proceedings had been initiated against him. The court observed that the bank maintained "" for 13 months before challenging the counsel's statements.
Counsel as , Not a
Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the court emphasised the
.
"The said nominated counsel was an
and not a mere
of the petitioner,"
Justice Banerjee remarked. The court pointed out that the counsel's statements had been made not once, but twice—before the JMFC and the Lok Adalat—and had
"attained the
."
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal observations:
"No litigant like the petitioner herein can be permitted to from order(s) passed on the strength of counsel's submissions. If the same is permitted to be allowed, the same will create a ."
"The petitioner's attempt to from the statement made by its counsel on the plea of ' '…strikes at the very foundation of the and undermines the sanctity of the role played by a counsel in assisting the Court in adjudicatory process."
"The petitioner thus cannot wriggle out of what transpired therein…the contentions now sought to be raised by the petitioner seems to be an ."
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
with no order as to costs. The ruling reinforces the principle that statements made by a litigant's counsel in court are binding on the client, and a party cannot later disown them to undo a concluded proceeding. The decision serves as a warning to litigants who might attempt to disavow their counsel's submissions, stressing the need for vigilance and prompt action if there is any genuine grievance. The judgment also underscores the finality of Lok Adalat awards based on consent, barring any
"
."
