2018 (9) TMI 1804 - HC - Indian Laws

Permission sought for appointment of a new Counsel - Held that - This is nothing but a delaying tactics on part of the respondent company. After a matter has been heard at length without assigning any reason and without leave of the Court it is most inappropriate to withdraw a counsel and come up with a new counsel. The arguments were nearly completed therefore permission to a new senior counsel at this stage cannot be granted. It would have been a different situation if a new senior counsel would have come up along with the earlier counsel so that the arguments would not be repeated. But this is not the situation - there is no option but to close the arguments of the respondent company.

Summary

Issues: Delaying tactics by respondent company in changing counsels during the hearing.

The judgment delivered by Justice Vivek Chaudhary of the Allahabad High Court pertains to a case where the petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Sri Prashant Chandra and counsel Sri Pritish Kumar, was arguing for the petitioner, Reserve Bank of India. The respondent company, M/S Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., was initially represented by Senior Counsel Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur and counsel Sri Kumar Ayush. The hearing commenced on 21.08.2018 with arguments from both sides. However, the respondent company's counsels sought adjournments on multiple dates due to various reasons, leading to delays in completing the arguments. When the matter was finally supposed to be concluded, a new Senior Advocate, Sri Vikas Singh, appeared for the respondent company without the earlier counsels having instructions in the matter. Justice Vivek Chaudhary noted that changing counsels at such a late stage, without valid reasons and without the leave of the Court, amounted to delaying tactics by the respondent company. The Court emphasized that allowing a new counsel to argue at this stage, when arguments were nearly completed, was inappropriate and against legal norms. Consequently, the Court closed the arguments of the respondent company due to the absence of instructing counsel. The petitioner's Senior Advocate was then permitted to make rejoinder arguments, which were concluded, and the order was reserved for further consideration. The Court highlighted that the application filed by the respondent company would be considered in the final decision.