Advocates Can't Pressurize Court To Pass Favourable Order So That They Can Recover Free From Their Clients: MP HC Condemns Lawyer Who Made Unparliamentary Comments
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while condemning the conduct of a counsel in making unparliamentary comments, has said that Advocates cannot pressurize the Court to pass favourable orders so that they can recover the fee from their client.
The Bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia observed, “Thus, the profession of an Advocate is not a business or commercial activity. They are supposed to put forward the case of their client by exercising their professional skills, but they should not try to make the profession, a commercial activity. They cannot pressurize the Court to pass a favorable order, so that they can recover the fee from their client. The Courts are not supposed to be concerned about the recovery of fee of an Advocate from his client…Accordingly, the aforesaid conduct of counsel for petitioner in making unparliamentary comments is hereby condemned.”
Advocate Sukhendra Singh appeared for the Petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared for the Respondents.
The case of the Petitioner was that the Respondents had issued an Expression of Interest & Concept Design Invitation for Development/ Renovation/ Retrofitting/ Additional construction works in the State. Despite being the most eligible firm, the Petitioner was not allotted the work. During the arguments, it was submitted by the State that the petitioner had not impleaded the architectural firms who have been awarded the contract of consultancy, therefore the petition suffers from non-joinder of the necessary party. In reply to the submission, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the State was trying to twist the facts and had refused to implead the successful architectural firms.
On the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, the Court held that the successful architectural firms are the “necessary party” for adjudication of the claim of the petitioner. “This Court could not understand the arrogant attitude of counsel for petitioner specifically when the objection raised by the State counsel was a legal objection which was also otherwise relevant under the facts and circumstances of the case…Be that whatever it may be…Once counsel for the petitioner has refused to implead the successful architectural firms, therefore this petition is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties.”, the Court said.
The Court also noted that when it had observed that it would dictate the order in the Chamber, as it was already 04:40 PM, then apprehending that the case might be dismissed, the counsel for the petitioner started insisting on an adjournment. “After realizing that the Court may not pass a favourable order, if an attempt is made by a Lawyer to seek adjournment, then it is a glaring example of Bench hunting. Be that whatever it may be…When the prayer for adjournment was refused, certain comments were passed by counsel for petitioner which were unparliamentary and were not expected from a Lawyer.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case.
Cause Title: Kushi &Associates v. The State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Sukhendra Singh
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly