Lawyer Must Respect Decision-Making Right Of Client; Undertaking To Court Can’t Be Without His Requisite Authority: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that when there has been an express violation of an Order of a Court, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted with.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the Lawyer must respect the decision-making right of the client and any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client.
The Court emphasised thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which Defendants were held guilty of disobedience of their undertaking before the Trial Court of not alienating the property, subject matter of the Suit.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol remarked, “… a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter. It is also clear that the lawyer is to respect the decision-making right of the client. It flows from this that any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client.”
The Bench enunciated that when there has been an express violation of an Order of a Court, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted with.
AOR Rajeev Singh represented the Appellants while AOR Vikram Hegde represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondents were the original Plaintiffs in a Suit seeking a declaration to the effect that an agreement between the parties i.e., ‘Joint Development Agreement’ (JDA) to be “revoked rescinded and terminated”. The JDA was entered into regarding the construction of residential apartments within a period of 24 months, on a turnkey basis. As the construction could not be completed by the deadline, a legal notice intimating the cancellation of JDA was issued and eventually, the Suit was filed.
The Trial Court held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction. The Defendants in the Trial Court through their counsel gave an undertaking which was allegedly disobeyed. The Plaintiffs aggrieved thereby filed the case, which was dismissed, and they appealed to the High Court, ultimately resulting in a favourable Order. The original Defendants were aggrieved by being held in contempt, and hence, approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “The appellants herein would have us believe that the undertaking to not alienate the subject matter property, which, undoubtedly, has far-reaching implications, extending over a large period of time. We find such a situation difficult to accept. The undertaking, subject matter of controversy, was given in July 2007 and the miscellaneous application was filed in the year 2011, i.e., after a period of four and a half years. Had the situation been that the said undertaking was without requisite authority, the clients were perfectly within their rights to seek discharge of that order, however, no such step was taken.”
The Court was of the view that alienation of the subject matter property despite express Orders of the Court, entirely justify the stand taken by the High Court in punishing the Appellants for Contempt of Court.
“The powers of contempt of Court have been provided for the purposes of ensuring that the dignity and majesty of law is always maintained”, it further noted.
Considering the fact that at the time of filing the Appeal, the Appellant No. 1 i.e., the Contemnor before the High Court was 63 years of age and now approximately of 68 years, the Court modified the impugned Order to the extent that the 3 months confinement in civil prison shall stand deleted.
“The rest of the order regarding attachment of property remains undisturbed. Additionally, the amount of compensation payable by the appellants herein shall stand enhanced from a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal, modified the impugned Order, and ordered that the amount of compensation shall carry a simple interest @ 6% from the date of the Lower Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Lavanya C & Anr. v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased by LRs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 325)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Rajeev Singh, Advocates Radhakrishna S. Hegde, and Prakash Chandra Sharma.
Respondents: AOR Vikram Hegde and Advocate Abhinav Hansaraman.
