2018 (8) TMI 1789 - SC - Indian Laws

Right to be represented before the Redressal Committee through a lawyer - Whether lawyers can represent their clients in the fact scenario in the present case is sub judice in the Supreme Court, some intermediate course of conduct should have been followed instead of dismissing the petition? Held that - The very Bombay High Court judgment referred to itself states that a professional lawyer may represent the petitioner, and not merely an employee of the company, provided he does not take more than a day to submit his arguments - We have also been informed that at present the Bombay view is opposite of the Delhi and Punjab and Haryana views. In the interest of justice, what has been done by the Bombay High Court in the order referred to, as well in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR VERSUS KINGFISHER AIRLINES LTD AND ORS 2015 (12) TMI 1471 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA we allow a professional lawyer to appear on behalf of the petitioner and allow him to present an oral argument, which shall not last beyond one day - the matter is fixed for hearing on 31.08.2018. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Representation of clients by lawyers in court proceedings.

In this judgment, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether lawyers can represent their clients in a specific case. The petitioner argued that an intermediate course of conduct should have been followed instead of dismissing the petition since the issue was sub judice in the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the Bombay High Court judgment allowed a professional lawyer to represent the petitioner, not just an employee of the company, as long as the lawyer did not take more than a day to submit arguments. It was highlighted that the views of Bombay High Court differed from those of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana.

The Court, after hearing the respondent's counsel, decided in the interest of justice to allow a professional lawyer to appear on behalf of the petitioner and present oral arguments, limited to one day. The Court referred to its previous order in a similar case and emphasized that the lawyer representing the petitioner should present their case on a specific date without spilling over to subsequent dates. The Court disposed of the special leave petition without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, and all pending applications were also disposed of.