R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on two aspects

(a) Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client?

(b) Does the client has freedom to choose and engage a advocate and change the advocate?

Thus, even after providing a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the client remaining in his hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was engaged, it is important to notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him. In the conditions prevailing in India with lots of illiterate people among the litigant public it may not be advisable also to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the fees claimed by him. Any such lien if permitted would become susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.

… and more…

A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.
In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shobharam and ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910). The words of his choice in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom he once engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.
If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate.

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3049], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 375], [2000 ALT SC 5 1], [2001 BLJR 1 174], [2000 CTC 3 757], [2001 GLH 3 624], [2000 JT SC 9 432], [2000 KLT SC 3 438], [2001 LW 1 284], [2001 MHLJ SC 1 23], [2000 MPLJ SC 613], [2000 PLJR 4 161], [2000 RD 91 692], [2000 SCALE 6 42], [2000 SCC 7 264], [2000 SUPP SCR 2 598], [2001 UJ 1 27], [2000 UPLBEC 3 2404], [2000 AIR SC 2912], [2000 CTR 163 32]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151656/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411a9d

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma

http://www.briefcased.in/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-22160

Karnataka High Court Judgments:

NOC not required

Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016

NOC required:

Bhagya Vs Jayalakshmi on 13 Feb 2019

Other Judgements on this subject here.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment, had rejected the application of a Deputy Manager of a Company to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Company.

A natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.

Who can be Party in Person?

Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled as an advocate.

… and more…

We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.

From Para 7,

7. There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to appear before it and argue the case. A power-of-attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in court on behalf of anyone, unless, permitted by the court under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements, etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone else, unless prohibited by law.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Citations : [2011 ACR SC 2 2269], [2011 JKJ SC 3 56], [2011 JT SC 7 559], [2011 KLT SC 3 498], [2011 RCR CIVIL 4 252], [2011 SCALE 7 413], [2011 SCC 15 449], [2011 SCR 7 846], [2014 SCC CIV 2 617], [2011 MWN CR 3 290], [2011 AIOL 469], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 257], [2011 KLT 3 498], [2011 JT 7 559]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170747848/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af02e4b0149711415575

Abhyudya Sanstha Vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A batch of SLPs submitted by appellant educational institutions are dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment, who were held not to have approached the Apex Court with clean hands.

Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011

Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr on 16 May, 2013

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex court has clearly held that any order that got caused by suppression of information, any Court has an obligation to set aside the said order.

From Para 10,

…learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that when the accused has not approached the court in clean hands and the High Court itself has observed that the order setting aside the order of cognisance was not justified, it should not have interfered with the order passed by the learned trial Judge declining to discharge the accused.

From Para 18,

The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused-respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.

A victim of a crime has as much right to get justice from the court as an accused who enjoys the benefit of innocence till the allegations are proven against him. In the case at hand, when an order of quashment of summons has been obtained by suppression, this Court has an obligation to set aside the said order and restore the order framing charges and direct the trial to go on. And we so direct.

Moti Lal Songara vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr on 16 May, 2013

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994

Posted on June 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court on when can a party be set ex parte.

As principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are –
(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of the improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff has acquiesced for sometime. In such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;
(g) general principles like, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Posted on June 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment denied maintenance to Knife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reasons.

Justice BP SINGH held that,

“the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was not compelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did not leave his house. There was no ground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty. In sum and substance she had no justifiable reason to desert the appellant. The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not entitled to the grant of maintenance.”

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Citations: [AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3174], [2003 AIR SCW 4522], [2004 SCC(CRI) 164], [2003 (5) SLT 170], [(2003) 3 BANKCAS 86], [2003 (6) SCALE 742], [(2003) 7 JT 379 (SC)], [2003 (11) SCC 303], [2003 CRIAPPR(SC) 513], [2003 (9) SRJ 130], [(2003) 11 ALLINDCAS 129 (SC)], [(2004) 2 MARRILJ 488], [(2004) 1 DMC 25], [(2004) 1 BOMCR(CRI) 949], [(2003) 4 ALLCRILR 139], [(2003) 6 SUPREME 415], [(2004) 1 RAJ CRI C 201], [(2004) SC CR R 352], [(2004) 1 RAJ LW 14], [(2003) 2 RAJ LR 492], [2004 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 449], [(2003) 10 INDLD 580], [(2003) 4 CRIMES 74], [(2003) 2 UC 1388], [(2003) 2 HINDULR 523], [(2003) 26 OCR 606], [(2003) 4 RECCRIR 189], [(2003) 3 CURCRIR 242], [(2003) 3 ALLCRIR 2849], [(2003) 6 SCALE 742], [(2003) 47 ALLCRIC 897], [(2003) 3 BLJ 531], [2003 (2) ALD(CRL) 765], [(2003) 3 WLC (RAJ) 593]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1017614/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcce4b01497114124ee

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deb-narayan-halder-vs-smt-anushree-halder

Index of Maintenance Judgments are here.

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs Asha Kumari & Anr. on 9 April, 2018

Posted on June 16, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is made absolutely clear that interim maintenance allowed under HMA takes precedence over that is allowed under Section 125 of CrPC.

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs Asha Kumari & Anr. on 9 April, 2018

Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010

Posted on June 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A Significant omission in the witness statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C amounted to a contradiction and resulted in acquittal of accused in this Supreme Court case under IPC 498A.

Explanation to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.

Explanation. – An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.”

Here is the Clincher…

A bare reading of this Explanation would reveal that if a significant omission is made in the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the same may amount to a contradiction and that whether it so amounts is a question of fact in each case.

Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010

Pritish Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001

Posted on June 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The main contention point in this case in the Hon’ble Apex Court was “he was not heard during the preliminary inquiry conducted by the reference court under Section 340 of the Code.”

An exercise of the court at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into.

Pritish Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016

Posted on June 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, proceedings against sisters-in-law of the knife under 498A, 3/4 DP Act are quashed due to “no clear allegations have been levelled by respondent no.2 – Sonia Gupta against any of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6”

Interesting point:

Investigation for dowry harassment on the applicants is done 4 times, and 3 Final Closure reports are submitted in this case.

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Abhyudya Sanstha Vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011

Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr on 16 May, 2013

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs Asha Kumari & Anr. on 9 April, 2018

Subhash Vs State Of Haryana on 16 December, 2010

Pritish Vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001

Ram Saran Varshney And Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another on 5 February, 2016