LexRAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus SUBHASH KAPOOR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. B c v. SUBHASH KAPOOR AND ORS. NOVEMBER 14, 2000 [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Advocates: lawyers Strike and Professional ethics. Suit decreed ex-pa rte against defendant as advocate for the defendant failed to appear due to lawyers strike-Held, in future the advocate would also be answerable for the consequences suffered by the party if the non- appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call-It is unjust and D inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self imposed dereliction of his advocate-Such litigant, who suffers entirely on account of hi$ advocate's non-appearance in Court has also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages-Same Court has power to realise the cost to permit the litigant party to realise the cost from the advocate concerned without driving such party to initiate another legal action against the advocate-Further, the E services rendered by the advocates to their clients are regulated by a contract between the two besides statutory limitations, restrictions and guidelines incorporated in the Advocates Act, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules of procedure. F Lawyers strike-Held, when an advocate opts to strike work or boycott the Court such advocate must as well be prepared to bear the pecuniary loss · suffered by the litigant client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with all confidence that his cause would be safe in the hands of that advc~. · Abstaining from the Court by advocates-By and large, does not only affect the persons belonging to the legal profession but also hampers the G process of justice sometimes urgently needed by the consumers of justice, t'he litigants. Advocate-client relationship-Nature of-Held, legal profession is essentially a service-oriented profession-The relationship between the lawyer H and his client is one of trust and confidence-With the strike by the lawyers, 550 - RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR 551 the process of court intended to secure justice is obstructed which is A unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act-law is no trade and briefs of the litigants not merchandise. Contempt Cpntempt of Supreme Court-Committed by other Courts in India- B Due to inaction under lawyers strike-Held, Courts to rise from slumber and perform their duty without fear or favour-Inaction will contribute to the erosion of ethics and values in the legal profession-The defaulting Court may also be contributory to the contempt of the Supreme Court. Constitution of India c Welfare State-Goal of-Held, lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of constitutional government, as they are guardians of the modern legal system-The concept of welfare state would remain in oblivion unless social justice is dispensed with-Dispensation of social justice and D achieving the goals set forth in the Constitution are not possible without the active, concerted and dynamic efforts made by the person concerned with the justice dispensation system-The role of the members of the Bar has. great importance i~ the post-independent era in the country. A suit was filed against the appellant (whose place of business was in E Mumbai) by the respondent for eviction and on the day fixed for trial, there was lawyers strike in the trial court when the advocate for the appellant failed to appear and an ex-parte evidence was recorded. An application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by the appellant but the said application was dismissed and suit was decreed. Thereafter, an application for setting aside ex-parte p decree was filed and the same was also dismissed. Appeal filed before the High Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Per Thomas, J.: 1.1. When the advocate who is engaged by a party is on strike there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account. An advocate has no right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or boycott G any particular court. 1556-G, HI H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v, Taxation Bar Association, (19951 5 SCC 716; K John Koshy & Ors. v. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw, (19981 8 SCC 624; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation, (1999) 1 SCC 37 and Kollumottil Razak v. State of Kera/a, (lOOO.I 4 SCC 465, relied on.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.