AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J
Enough energy seems, to have been spent to decide as to who is to represent the appellant Bank in the O.A. filed by it and pending before the Tribunal below. This incidental issue, at best, required to be ignored has led to another offshoot for which the Counsel and the Bank have come up with these Appeals. Avoidable exercise by the Tribunal has given rise to this uncalled for litigation resulting in wasting the time and efforts of two forums which could have been better utilized.
Responsibility to represent and appear for a party before a Court or a Tribunal is primarily of the Counsel. Once a Counsel is authorized through a power of attorney, he can be permitted to appear. If more then one Counsel appears to represent a party, then it should be left to them to sort out the issue while recording their presence. A simple procedural issue which, in fact, is a non-issue has been so agitated by the Counsel in a manner which may not measure up to the expected professional standards.
Initially, these four different O.As. were filed by the appellant Allahabad-Bank through Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate. Subsequently, appearance was effected by Mr. S.S. Malik, another Advocate. As can be seen from the different orders annexed on the file, the presence of both the Advocates used to be marked till this issue was asked up on 12th June, 2015. On this date, Mr. Vijay Sharma and Mr. Sandeep Verma, proxy for Mr. S.S. Malik, both came to represent the appellant Allahabad-Bank. The Tribunal below has noticed that both the Counsel have filed their Vakalatnamas. Tribunal has thereafter observed that it is not clear as to who is going to appear in the matter in future. Having so observed, the Tribunal directed the CMD of the Bank to inform the Court as to who the Counsel is and who is going to appear in future as both the Counsel had filed their respective Vakalatnamas. The copy of the order was sent to CMD. Was there any need to seek this confirmation? It was better to leave the issue of appearance to the Counsel to sort out amongst themselves instead of getting involved in it.
Be that as it may, on 15th July, 2015, an affidavit of Zonal Manager was found placed on record, confirming that Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate was to appear in the matter. The Tribunal has noticed this fact in the opening part of the order passed on 15th July, 2015. That would have been enough to close the controversy, but it has not been so. The Tribunal thereafter has gone on to make reference to the order dated 12th June, 2015 for which really there was no need. Once the affidavit had come on record, that should have closed the issue. The Tribunal even has made some observation in regard to this affidavit and has then asked the CMD to file better affidavit.
Was this really needed? The apparent answer would be that there was no need for the Tribunal to do so. The primary aim of the Tribunal was to decide the O.A. and such offshoots ought to have been avoided. No purpose ultimately is going to be achieved.
In this Appeal, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit that was filed by the DGM-cum-Zonal Head of Allahabad Bank posted at Chandigarh. The perusal of this affidavit would show that the same was filed on being authorized by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. The deponent of this affidavit has clearly disclosed that Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, was engaged earlier to represent the Bank and the Bank had decided to engage another Counsel on account of which the authorisation given to Mr. Sharma stood withdrawn. The copies of intimation sent to Mr. Vijay Sharma are annexed with the affidavit. The Bank has further clearly disclosed in this affidavit that Mr. Shamsher Singh Malik has been engaged in place of Mr. Vijay Sharma who could no longer represent the Bank. The communication addressed to Mr. S.S. Malik is also annexed with this affidavit. This affidavit was sufficient enough to bring an end to this non-issue. The Tribunal has still thought it appropriate to seek further information.
The apparent grievance of the Bank is to see and bring to an end this issue. Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate, has joined as appellant in these Appeals filed by the Bank, making grievance against some observations recorded against him. This may to an extent explain the reason for which the Bank may have been persuaded to file these Appeals. The Tribunal below, after passing the order dated 15th July, 2015, has recorded certain observations apparently in the absence of the Counsel for the parties. Recorded observations and the manner of making the record is well reflected in the order itself which is as under:
"Before signing the above order, I deem it necessary to place facts on record. On 12th June, 2015 Mr. Vijay, Sharma Advocate had stated that he is the Counsel as he had filed the OA initially and he has not given no objection to the new Counsel as is the norm. Since Proxy Counsel for Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate had also appeared that order was passed.
Today also both Counsel appeared. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit of the Zonal Manager had been filed. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate stated that it was only after the order dated 12th June, 2015 that the Bank issued a letter which he stated was ante-dated as it has been posted to him on 17th June, 2015 only.
While passing the order today Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate kept on intervening and stated that the affidavit of the Zonal Manager be accepted. Voices were raised. He did not let the full order be dictated in his presence despite my repeated requests to him but he did not pay any heed to my requests and kept on interrupting and then he closed his file and walked out. It was only then the latter part of the order below one line marked on the first page could be pronounced in the Court.
The above observations are necessary as both Counsel had filed their separate service report.
The affidavit does not effect the status of the case as the defence of the Defendants has been struck off, but is only to ensure that no such like situation happens in future."
The Tribunal has not left the issue even at that. Having recorded the above-noted observation, the Tribunal passed the order of the day as under:
"Thus the order passed today is as under--Affidavit does not state whether the CMD was aware of the fact that affidavit authorising the deponent to state that they have decided to engage another Counsel. It does not disclose whether the CMD had told the deponent that the authority given by the Bank to Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate had been withdrawn. Affidavit merely states that since now the Bank has decided to engage some other Counsel. 'Hence the authority given by the Bank to Shri Sharma has been withdrawn', has been given by the CMD or not.
Better affidavit be filed stating whether there is any written instructions or verbal instructions in this regard. Order of 12th June, 2015 be complied with.
The proxy Counsel for the Applicant requests for a short date. However, due to heavy cause list, the shorter date is not possible.
Since-defence of the defendants has already been struck off, list before the Assistant Registrar on 12th October, 2015 for making of exhibits and thereafter before this Court on 14th December, 2015.
In case certain documents are yet to be exhibited, the same shall be one but before next date of hearing fixed before this Court."
That being the position, the order actually passed on 15th July, 2015 would be what is termed as order passed today and reproduced above. That being the legal position, any observation recorded in the earlier part of the order apparently seems to have been given a go-by. The grievance of the appellant No. 2, Mr. S.S. Malik, as an Advocate is against that part of the order where the Tribunal below has made a record of his intervening and raising voice and not allowing the Tribunal to dictate the order in his presence.
The Counsel has filed an affidavit to state that he had never been disrespectful. Even during this oral submission, the Counsel has made reference to his old age and standing at the bar to impress upon the fact that these observations were recorded in his absence even though the matter stood adjourned giving date to the parties.
Mr. S.S. Malik, as appellant, would have been better advised to confine his affidavit to explain that he had not raised his voice or that he had left the Court when the case was adjourned.
It is not appropriate for this Tribunal to examine and adjudicate the factual controversy raised when it pertains to judicial orders. It is not needed even. Suffice to say that a judicial order and recording made therein Has to be accepted as true and correct reflection of the happening. If the aim was to contest the order more appropriate course for the appellant No. 2 would have been to seek review of the order. Be that as it may, let this issue be brought to an end rather than permitting to escalate.
Need to realize that Advocates are officers of the Court and their vital presence for delivering justice is imperative. The preamble to the Code of Conduct for lawyers in the European Union talks about the unique position which an Advocate enjoys in the system of administration of justice. In a society founded on respect of the rule of law, the lawyer fulfils a special role. His duty does not begin and end with faithful performance of what he is instructed to do so far as the law permits. A lawyer is meant to serve the interest of justice as well as those whose rights and liberties he is trusted to assert and defend. It is his duty not only to plead his clients' cause but to be his adviser. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the cases has noticed the integral bond between a lawyer and the public which is unbreakable. The vital role of the lawyer depends upon his probity and professional life style. It is noticed that the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. It obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worth of confidence of the community in him as the vehicle of justice-social justice. In one of the cases, this Tribunal has spoken about the role of lawyer as under:
"The lawyer's function therefore lays on him a variety of legal and moral obligations toward : the client; the Courts and other authorities before whom the lawyer pleads the client's cause and acts on his behalf. The three-fold loyalty of the lawyer to his client, to the Court or administrative agency before which he practices, and to society at large makes his position unique. The intense scrutiny that lawyer faces as a result of these significant duties has led to the criticism and distrust of lawyer throughout history. No wonder legal profession has gone to great lengths to regulate itself, in part, to make sure the things that cause this distrust do not happen. Lawyer, as an officer of the Court, is an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. When such a person having this unique role and responsibilities conducts himself in a manner which requires any Court or Tribunal to initiate action, then that always be with the heavy heart as the dignity of the Courts/Tribunals as an institution is paramount and has to be kept inviolate at any cost. Thus, the responsibility also cannot be ignored by any Court or Tribunal."
That being the role and responsibility of an Advocate to assist in the administration of justice, a very high degree of dignified conduct can rightly be expected from a Counsel who appears in a case to represent a party. For earning respect as a lawyer, he equally owes a duty to respect the institution of Court before which he appears to seek justice for litigant at large. The appellant Counsel is right in submitting that there is always a need of coordination between the Bench and the Bar so as to ensure that pure and unpolluted justice is delivered. This not only has to remain as a belief but needs to be depicted as a conduct by an Advocate while conducting himself before the Court or the Tribunal.
Recently, there has been some unsavoury incidents where some members of Bar have shown extreme disrespect to the Bench. It is good to observe that the appellant Counsel in this case was categorical in saying that he was not a participant in this move initiated by some of the members of the Bar who may even be elected representative. It is not the occasion for this Tribunal to talk about the role and responsibility of a Counsel. Still, a brief mention about the role of an Advocate may be called for in order to remind all who are concerned with the administration of justice.
In Advocate General of Madras v. Shri Amanullakhan, Advocate, Salem-1, AIR 1967 Madras 162, the Court has observed that legal practitioners are not merely agents of parties pleading a particular case but are officers of the Court, expected to assist in the administration of justice and to sustain unimpaired the dignity of Courts, by all means in their power. Advocates owe a duty not only to their clients but also towards the Court, of which he is an officer and, therefore, there are certain limitations which he must observe.....(See: Anita Sohanlal Ghai v. Snehalata w/o. Sohanlal Ghai alias Sohanlal Bansiram Kanwar, 1996 Cr. L.J. 3641). Making baseless allegation and insinuation reflecting on the conduct of Judges was held amounting to professional misconduct in Union of India v. Gulshan Bajwa, V (2003) SLT 444 : (2003) 7 SCC 545. This and some other cases can be cited endlessly where the Court has spoken about the role of an Advocate, requiring him not to do anything to tarnish, terrorize and destroy the system of administration of justice by vilification of Judges. Everyone must understand that it is not that the Judges need to be protected as they are well capable of taking care of themselves but it is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that has to be protected.
With that aim in view, this Tribunal has considered it appropriate to bring an end to this unsavoury incident. Once the Counsel has come on affidavit before this Tribunal stating that he had not shown any disrespect by closing file or leaving the Court premises while the order was being dictated, that should be taken enough to end the same to avoid further precipitating the issue. It appears that the Tribunal has recorded certain observations before signing while the order had been dictated in the open Court. May be there was some misunderstanding of the situation. The issue in present is trivial or a non-issue. Once the Bank has come forward to file this Appeal, there should not be any doubt left that Mr. S.S. Malik is now engaged to represent the Bank in these cases. The profession of Advocate ordains a high level of ethics as much in the means as in the ends. Once the Counsel was informed by the Bank that he is no more to represent the Bank, insistence on his part still to appear really was much against the high standard of ethics expected from an Advocate. The Tribunal could have easily avoided this situation by leaving it to the Counsel to sort out as to who has been engaged and who is to appears. As is noticed, both the Counsel have been appearing without any controversy prior to 12th June, 2015. The affidavit sought and filed on record would have been enough to satisfy the need of any of the Tribunal to see proper representation. The misunderstanding arising in this case in the mind of the Tribunal being explained now can be taken as sufficient to see a happy ending. The observations recorded in the impugned order which are not any strictures, can be taken as expunged. The Counsel Mr. S.S. Malik while appearing before the Tribunal below would explain and submit that he had not meant any disrespect towards the Tribunal.
The present Appeals are accordingly disposed of.