SURENDRA PRASAD MISHRA versus SMT. RAMAWATI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 16-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
SURENDRA PRASAD MISHRA
v.
SMT. RAMAWATI AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.6634 of 2019)
AUGUST 16, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Advocates: Dispute between lawyers with regard to payment
of fees – In the instant case, a claim petition was filed before the
appellant holding post of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in which
vakalatnama was filed by two lawyers – Settlement was arrived at
between the claimant and the insurance company and signed by
one of the lawyer – The other lawyer raised objection that his fees
was not paid and, therefore, the compromise should not be recorded
– Appellant accepted the request of the other lawyer and held that
the compromise petition could only be filed through this lawyer –
This order was challenged before High Court – High Court set
aside the order – Held: High Court was right in setting aside the
order – The claimants in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should
not be made to suffer because of the dispute between the lawyers
– It is not for any court to settle the dispute between the lawyers
with regard to the fees – If there is any misconduct on the part of
the lawyer in taking up the brief of another lawyer, normally it is
for the Bar Council and not for the Court to settle the dispute –
Bar Council.
Judiciary: Subordinate judiciary – Adverse/Disparaging/
Scathing remarks made on integrity of the judicial officer in the
judgment – In the impugned judgment, High Court made certain
observations against the appellant-judicial officer  questioning his
bona fide and casting aspersions on his integrity and also accused
him of favouring  lawyer and directed on the judicial side that the
matter be referred on the administrative side for appropriate action
– Held: The proper course is to place the matter before the Chief
Justice on the administrative side with a request that action be
taken against the concerned judicial officer – In this case, High
Court did that but in addition passed scathing remarks which
virtually meant that the appellant stood condemned even before any
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 907
907
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them – High Court
by castigating the judicial officer as an unworthy and corrupt
person, overstepped its boundaries – Remarks are expunged – Cost
imposed on judicial officer is also set aside – Costs.
Ishwari Prasad Mishra v. Mohammad Isa [1963] 3 SCR
722 ; K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994
SC 1031 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 497 ; Parkash Singh
Teji v. Northern India Goods Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd.
and Anr. (2009) 12 SCC 577 : [2009] 6 SCR 278 ; In
‘K’ A Judicial Officer v. Registrar General, High Court
of A.P. AIR 2010 SC 2801 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1963] 3 SCR 722
relied on
Para 5
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 497
relied on
Para 6
[2009] 6 SCR 278
relied on
Para 7
AIR 2010 SC 2801
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6634
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No. 25607 of 2012.
Shaswat Goel, Vibhav Mishra. Ms. Ruchika Sharma (for
M.P. Shorawala, Advs. for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, a judicial officer, was holding the post of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal at the relevant time. A claim petition was filed
before him in which vakalatnama was filed by two counsel Mr. R.M.
Singh and Mr. D.K. Saxena. The matter was settled between the
claimant and the Insurance Company and the settlement petition was
filed and signed by Mr. D.K. Saxena. At that time, Mr. R.M. Singh
raised an objection that his fees had not been paid and that the
compromise  should  not  be  recorded. The appellant here in accepted
the request of Mr. R.M. Singh and held that the compromise petition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
could only be filed through Mr. R.M. Singh and not by Mr. D.K.
Saxena.   He  came  to  the  conclusion that since vakalatnama bears
a sum of Rs.10/- for the Advocates Welfare Fund, one lawyer can only
be authorized and not more.
3. This order was challenged. The High Court rightly set aside
the order. It is not for any Court to settle the dispute between the
lawyers  with  regard to payment of  fees. If there  is  anymisconduct
on the part of the lawyer in taking up the brief of another lawyer,
normally it is for the Bar Council and not for the Court to settle the
dispute.  It was rightly held by the H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.