9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1229 - SC - Companies LawExpulsion of Respondents from the Appellant-Society - Held that - Writ Court after considering the merits of the case has come to the conclusion that the expulsion of Respondents from the Appellant-Society was justified. Having said so, in our view, the Court ought not to have issued the impugned directions merely because a request was made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-herein. The same would hold true even if a concession was made by the counsel for the Appellant-Society. The Court, while, exercising its powers Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to have confined itself to the subject matter and the issues raised by parties in the Writ Petition. The digression of or expansion of the supervisory jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would open precarious floodgates of litigation should the limitation on the supervisory jurisdiction not be observed mindfully. It is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority conferred him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorized agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client. The advocate represents the client before the Court and conducts proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the Court and the client. Therefore his responsibility is onerous. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than substitute his judgment. In view of the above, while allowing these appeals, we set aside the directions issued by the Writ Court to the Appellant-Society as also the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Review Petition.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Authority of counsel to make concessions on behalf of the appellant-society. 3. Binding nature of concessions made by counsel on the appellant-society and its members. 4. Relevance of the subject matter of the concession to the issues before the Writ Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: The Court examined whether the Writ Court was justified in issuing incidental and ancillary directions under Articles 226 and 227. The judgment referenced the case of *Jaisingh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.* (2010) 9 SCC 385, stating that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals act within their authority. The scope of Article 227 is wider than Article 226, but must be exercised with care and caution. The Court concluded that the Writ Court should have confined itself to the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, as the petitions were essentially supervisory in nature. 2. Authority of counsel to make concessions on behalf of the appellant-society: The judgment discussed the fiduciary duties of lawyers to their clients, emphasizing that lawyers must follow clients' instructions and cannot make concessions without express authorization. The Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, particularly Rules 15 and 19, mandate that advocates must act on their client's instructions and uphold their interests. The Court noted that a lawyer must be specifically authorized to settle and compromise a claim, and merely being retained does not grant implied authority to bind the client to a compromise. 3. Binding nature of concessions made by counsel on the appellant-society and its members: The judgment underscored that any concession made by a lawyer without express instructions from the client does not bind the client. It referred to several precedents, including *Periyar and Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala* (1991) 4 SCC 195, which highlighted that concessions by government pleaders do not bind the government unless made on written instructions from a responsible officer. The Court concluded that the Writ Court should have verified whether the counsel for the appellant-society was authorized to make the concession before issuing directions based on it. 4. Relevance of the subject matter of the concession to the issues before the Writ Court: The judgment emphasized that the subject matter of the concession made by the counsel was not the issue before the Writ Court. The Court noted that the Writ Court, while exercising its powers under Article 227, should have confined itself to the issues raised in the petition and not expanded its jurisdiction based on an oral request or concession. The Court stressed that the directions issued by the Writ Court, based on the concession, were beyond the scope of the petition and required caution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the directions issued by the Writ Court to the appellant-society and the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the Review Petition. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the necessity of express authorization for concessions by counsel, and the need for courts to exercise caution in expanding their supervisory jurisdiction.
|
