LexJAMILABAI ABDUL KADAR versus SHANKERLAL GULABCHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
336
A
B
c
D
E
F
JAMILABAI ABDUL KADAR
V.
SHANKERLAL GULABCHAND & ORS.
April 30, 1975
JV. R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA AND AC. GUPTA, JJ.J
Adrocatcs Act, 1961--Scopl' of authority of an advocate to enter into
con1pron1ise on behalf of. !di client.
The appellant engaged a pleader to fight her case in a Court. The case
wa~ adjourned from time to time for the parties to compose their differenc.cs.
Eventually, the Court re•.ordeJ a compromise, signed by the pleader ·of the
appellant. At the time of signing the compromise, though the appellant was
not present in Court, her litigation agent \V'as present and was consulted v;;hen
the order was made. The appellant later filed a suit for a declaration that the
decree based on a compromise entered into by her pleader was without authority
nnd was not binding on her. The suit was disniissed. The appeal \Vas dismissed
in limine by the High Court.
On appeal to this (::Ourt, it \Vas contended that the respondent, being a
tnerc pleader, had no power to compromise a suit unless expressly authorisc<l
by the party.
Dismis.sing the appeal-
HELD : (a) La\vyers, be they advocates, vakils or pleaders, stand on the
san1c footing in regard to their po\\•er to act on behalf of their clients. By
the 1\dyocates Act, 1961. the Jndian Bar came into existence permitting en-
rolment of various categories of legal practitioners like vakils and pleaders.
Section 55 of the Act provides that t\'Cry pleader, v.·ho did not elect to be
enrolled as an ad\1ocate under that ,\ct, shall continue to enjoy the same
rights as respects practice in any Couit as he had before that Act came into force.
[340 H, 341-Al
In the instant case, though the respondent had not enrolled himself as
an advocate, his rights respects practice. in any Court are
what
he
had
enjoyed under the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920, not\vithstanding its repenl
by the Advocaes Act.
[341-B].
(b) Every legal practitioner is an officer of the Court and aids in the
cause of justice. The responsibility of the advOcatcs to their clients and to
the Court has to be the same even though some of them may be entitled to
appiar only in District Courts "''hile others in High Courts. The quality of
pc>\ver cannot stand c!i:fferentiation. [341-GH]
(2) If a suitor countermand-; his pleadcr".s authority to enter into ·a com-
G
promise or withholds, by express recital in the vakalat, the power to com-
promise the legal proceeding, the pleader or the advocate cannot go against
snch advice and bind the principal, his client. This is as illegal as it is un-
professional.
£342-FG]
Jiwibai v. Rarnjuwal·, AIR 1947 Nag. 17, approved.
(3) To act for the suitor involves myriad intricate actions often so legal
that the client may not even understand the implication.
Representation
in
J-J
Court may he so demanding and w transforms forensic obligation that a
Jav1yer may have ethical difficulties in mechanically obcving all the directions
of his principal. 1'he legal skill that is hired by the ~lient may, fo: _il'> very
effective exercise. need an area of autonomy and quickness of decision that
to 1estrict the agency to exrrcss authorisation is to ask for an unpredictable
and endless enumeration of powers. To ~ircun1scribe the power to ac_t is to
defeat the rurpos(~ of the engagement. Tt 1s pe1fect1y open to a party, like any
•,
..., .
J. A. KADAR v. SHANKERLAL (Krishna Iyer, J.)
337
other principal; to mark out in the vakalat or by particular instructjons for-
A
bidd~n areas or expressly \Vithhold the right to act
in sensitive matters, the
choice being his, ;as the master .. Th~ legal p.rofession is a para-public institu-
tion '"'·hich 'de-serves the special· confidence of and o-..ves greater responsibility
to the community at large than. the ordinary nin of agency.
[346-D-G, HJ
Sourindra ,._ lleramba, AIR 1923 PC 98, follo\\~d.
.
Laxmidas Ranchhoddas v. Savitabai, [1955] 57 BLR 988, S.S. Waikcr v. L. S.
Waiker, AIR 1960 Born. 20 and C. S. Nayakam v. A. N. Mc11011 AIR
1963
,B
K.er. 213 approved.
Ronde/ v. Morsley [1969] l A. C. 191 ref~rred to.
(4) The Advocate .or pleader has authority to act by \vay of compromising
a case iii 'vb.ich he is engaged even without specific consent from his client
subject. to two
over~riding considerations: (iJ He must act in good faith
C
ctnd for the benefit of his client; otherwise the power fails. {ii) It is prudent
and rroper to consult his client and takeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.