Back
Supreme Court's Justice Nagarathna: Lawyer's focus must be , not
In a sharp reminder of the core purpose of legal advocacy, Justice BV Nagarathna of the on Wednesday underscored that a lawyer’s primary duty is to secure tangible relief for the client, rather than pursue a "beautiful judgment" on abstract legal doctrines. The observation came during the dismissal of a (SLP) arising from an under the (MSME Act), where the petitioner’s counsel had insisted on challenging the of a instead of capitalising on a favourable .
The bench, also comprising Justice R Mahadevan, dismissed filed by M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the . The High Court, while entertaining a by the award-debtor M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd., had directed the respondent to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with the Registrar General and kept execution of the award in abeyance. The petitioner, who had succeeded before the , was aggrieved by the very of the , arguing that the dispute should have been challenged under .
Justice Nagarathna, however, turned the focus away from . “See the attitude of the Counsel must be to get relief for the party rather than getting a . This law, that law, this doctrine, that doctrine – it is all meant for you (advocates) and us (judges), but the client will be saying 'what is there for me?',” she observed.
The Case Background
The dispute originated from an award dated , passed by the , directing M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd. to deposit ₹6,25,677.80 along with interest under . The award-debtor challenged the award before the in a under . M/s Tara Techno Machines Pvt. Ltd. objected to the of the , relying on the under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The High Court noted that the issue of of a against an award of the MSME Facilitation Council is pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. In the interim, it directed M/s Shree Rathi Steel Ltd. to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with the Registrar General, to be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank bearing interest. Subject to that deposit, execution of the award was kept in abeyance.
Unsatisfied, the award-holder approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the itself was not maintainable and that the High Court should have relegated the respondent to the remedy under Section 34. The counsel pressed the point that the very foundation of the High Court’s order was flawed.
Justice Nagarathna’s Advice: Pragmatism Over Doctrine
Justice Nagarathna immediately questioned the wisdom of such a challenge. “Why have you come here? The award is in your favour,” she asked the counsel. When the counsel submitted that the was not maintainable, the judge pointed out the practical benefit already secured. “You file application for withdrawal of the amount. The amount has been secured for you. You should know how to go about it. Ultimately your client must get relief not by getting a beautiful order on the of a . Rightly or wrongly, now the court has asked the respondent to deposit 75%. Take advantage of it and file an application to seek withdrawal. We have to advise you, file an application for withdrawal of the amount and move that application before the High Court,” she advised.
The judge stressed that counsel must distinguish between situations where needs to be contested and situations where a party can benefit from an order already passed. She added, “You have succeeded in the arbitration, High Court asked to deposit 75%. You go and ask for withdrawal. Why are you saying ? You should know how to take advantage of court orders, when to fight on and when not to fight. The client is concerned about whether he will get the amount, judgments are only for us.”
This pragmatic approach reflects a deeper understanding of the lawyer-client relationship and the ultimate objective of litigation: resolution and relief, not academic victories. The bench dismissed the SLP, effectively leaving the petitioner to pursue the deposited amount.
The Broader Message for Legal Professionals
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks carry significant weight for the legal community. In an era where litigation often becomes mired in procedural objections and preliminary issues, her observation serves as a reminder that the law exists to serve the client, not the other way around. The focus on "beautiful judgments" – well-reasoned, doctrinally pristine orders – can sometimes overshadow the client's immediate need for money, possession, or freedom.
This is particularly relevant in commercial disputes involving MSMEs, where cash flow is critical. The MSME Act itself was designed to provide a swift and effective remedy for small enterprises. By insisting on challenging the of a rather than moving to withdraw the deposited amount, the counsel risked delaying the very relief the Act intended to secure.
The Supreme Court has often deprecated the tendency of lawyers to pursue academic or theoretical points at the expense of . In this case, the judge went a step further by actively advising the counsel on a more effective strategy. This hands-on guidance from the bench underscores the court’s role not merely as an arbiter of legal disputes but as a guardian of .
Impact on Legal Practice
For advocates, the takeaway is clear: strategic thinking must prioritise the client’s objectives. While it is essential to raise jurisdictional and
issues when they are genuine, doing so without considering the client’s ultimate benefit can be counterproductive. The judge’s advice to
"take advantage of court orders"
highlights the importance of reading the tea leaves of interim orders and using them to the client’s advantage.
This case also illustrates the interplay between the MSME Act and the Arbitration Act. The question of whether a lies against an award of the MSME Facilitation Council remains pending before a larger bench, but in the meantime, parties should not lose sight of the immediate relief available. The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the SLP effectively validates the High Court’s interim arrangement, allowing the award-holder to access 75% of the awarded amount while the issue is resolved.
Conclusion
Justice Nagarathna’s observation is a timely reminder that the legal profession is ultimately a service industry. Clients do not come to court to obtain elegant legal treatises; they come to resolve their problems. Lawyers who lose sight of this risk not only disappointing their clients but also wasting judicial time. The dismissal of the SLP, coupled with the judge’s pointed advice, sends a clear signal: focus on relief, not on rhetoric.
As the legal community digests this message, it may well prompt a broader conversation about the ethics and strategy of litigation. In the words of Justice Nagarathna, “The client is concerned about whether he will get the amount, judgments are only for us.” That distinction is one every advocate would do well to remember.
