Nafar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and Ors.

                           (Supreme Court of India)

     Civil Appeal No.3185 of 1999/ 31.8.2000

Equivalent citations: 2000(7)SCALE 610, (2000) 9 SCC 545.

Bench: S.Bharucha, S S Quadri, N S Hegde.

 

FACT OF THE CASE:- When the matter reached hearing, the court (supreme court) were informed by a learned advocate that Mr. P.S.Mishra was appearing for the appellant and that he was on his legs in another court, and he sought a pass over. Then the court asked where the appellants advocate-on-record was. The the court were told that he was coming. So court waited, during which time the learned Solicitor General, appearing for the first respondent, presented facts of the case before the court. The same advocate, who had said that the advocate-on-record was coming, now appeared again and said that the advocate-on-record was taking medicines and was coming. It is because of that the court continued to wait and the learned Solicitor General went on to read parts of the impugned judgment. About ten minutes later, Mr. Mishra and the advocate-on-record appeared. Then the court asked Mr. Mishra where the advocate-on-record had been all this time and were told that he had been instructing Mr. Mishra in the other court. The court asked, therefore, whether the statement of the learned advocate that the advocate-on-record had been taking medicine, was correct. The answer was that it was not correct. Then court asked why the leaders advocate had, then made such a statement. Then court were told that it might have been out of nervousness.

 

SUPREME COURT ORDER:- Nervousness, in our view, would not bring to a junior advocate the thought of making the excuse of medicines. A false statement has been made to us to keep the matter going, till Counsel could appear, which we will not tolerate. Mr. Mishra now states that he is appealing to our conscience. Our conscience dictates that the Court will not tolerate false statements made to it at the Bar, whether by a junior advocate or by anybody else. Mr. Mishra should know better than to refer to our conscience in these circumstances. The civil appeal is dismissed.

 

Thus a nervous ‘Junior Officer-of-Court’ made a wrong statement at Bar for pass over, Cost the Senior a dismissal order.

 

UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE IN SHORT:- While matter was called before this court (Supreme court), junior advocate appearing for appellent was asked about Mr. P. S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate in the matter and told he was busy in another court, then the court asked about the AOR the leader advocate first time told that he is coming and in second time he told that he is coming after taking medicine and in this way told to the court lie to take pass over. When the Sr. Advocate appeared, the court asked about AOR. Then he replied that he was with him and instructing him. Thus a nervous ‘Junior Officer-of-Court’ made a wrong statement at Bar for pass over, Cost the Senior a dismissal order.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

L.C.Goyal vs. Nawal Kishore (1997) 11 SCC 258.

                                Date of Judgement: 09.01.1997.                 (Issue of Bogus Cash Receipt by A.O.R. to the Client (Court-fee)                                                        ORDER   This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against the Order of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 24.6.1983 whereby  the appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of six months.   1.   FACT OF THE CASE:-          The  appellant  was practicing as  an   Advocate-an-Record in this Court.  He  was engaged by one Nawal Kishore (the complainant )  to fil...
Read more

T.C.Mathai & Anr. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (1999) 3SCC 614. Date of Judgement: 31.03.1999.

                        FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of   Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Co...
Read more

RD Saxena Vs Balram Prasad (AIR 2000 SC 2912)

(Whether the advocate can have a lien on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his clients for pending fees?) FACT OF THE CASE:- The appellant was appointed as a legal advisor to the  Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.  (herein referred to as  ‘Bank’ ) in 1990. He used to conduct cases on behalf of the said bank. Subsequently, on 17.7.1993 the bank terminated the retainers of the appellant; and requested him to return his files related to the bank. Instead of returning the files, he informed the bank that only after dues amounting to rupees 97,100/- were paid will he return the files. Hence, the Bank filed a complaint before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh on 3.2.1994. BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH:-   wherein the appellant contended that he has a right of lien on those files; whereas the respondent contended that the appellant is guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the files to his client. Subsequently, the matter got transf...
Read more