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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.