* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 02.09.2011
% Judgment delivered on: 07.09.2011
+ CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000
PROGETTO GRANO S.P.A. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Ms. Tanya
Khare and Mr. Sukant Vikram,
Advocates
versus
SHRI LAL MAHAL LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? : No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? : Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? : Yes
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. By this order I shall dispose of the objections raised by the defendant vide the affidavit dated 10.08.2011 to Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff. The affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendant by Mr. Ramlal Thakur, the authorized representative of the defendant.
2. Before I narrate the objections of the defendant to the appearance of Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 1 of 20 these proceedings, it would be appropriate to give a little background of these proceedings.
3. The present is a suit filed under Section 49 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking enforcement/execution of a foreign award. This suit is pending since the year 2000. Mr. Mehta appeared in these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff for the first time on 03.05.2010 before the Joint Registrar along with Ms. Bharti Badesra, Advocate. Thereafter, he appeared again on behalf of the plaintiff on 02.02.2011 before the Joint Registrar. On this day he even cross-examined the witness of the defendant, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur. On 13.05.2011, Mr. Mehta appeared on behalf of the plaintiff before this Court. He also appeared on the following date before this Court i.e. 28.07.2011. On this date, Mr. Mehta, inter alia, advanced arguments on the suit and concluded the same. Adjournment was sought on behalf of the defendant on the ground that the counsel for the defendant was not well. The case was adjourned to 02.08.2011 while making it clear that on the next date no adjournment shall be granted as the matter was part heard. On 02.08.2011, the matter could not be heard as no time was left. The matter was adjourned to 11.08.2011.
4. In the meantime, the defendant filed its affidavit dated 10.08.2011 without seeking any prior permission of the Court to raise an objection to the appearance of Mr. Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. The precise objection of the defendant as raised in the affidavit is that Mr. Mehta was involved in and actively participated on behalf of the defendant Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company in the CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 2 of 20 matter of Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company, Ex. P.No. 72/2009. It is stated that Mr. Jayant K.Mehta participated in the meetings and conferences with the officers/ex-partners of the defendant firm along with their advocates and was also actively involved in detailed and lengthy briefing sessions with the Senior Advocate along with ex-partners of the defendant's firm.
5. It is claimed that Mr. Mehta was revealed very vital and significant information which was confidential in nature during the meetings and conferences, including in relation to the aspects of dissolution of the defendant firm and the alleged liability towards the petitioners in those proceedings and towards the present plaintiff. It is further stated that Mr. Mehta was also involved in preparation and drafting of Regular First Appeal on behalf of the defendant firm and also appeared on behalf of the defendant firm before the Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No. 17/2009 along with other advocates on 10.02.2009. A copy of the order dated 10.02.2009 passed in FAO(OS) No.17/2009 has been filed along with this affidavit in support of this submission, which records the appearance of Mr.Jayant K. Mehta on behalf of the defendant firm herein. It is further stated that after the aforesaid RFA (OS) was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in which Mr. Mehta was not involved. Mr. Mehta, thereafter, started appearing in the present matter against the defendant.
6. It is claimed that the issue involved in the matter of Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company, Ex. P.No.72/2009 CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 3 of 20 and the present proceedings is totally identical. It is stated that substantial internal and confidential information was provided to Mr. Mehta which he has misused by one or the other means.
7. The deponent claims that he was not aware of the aforementioned details and they were provided to him only when the present matter was discussed in the chamber of the defendant's counsel in the presence of ex-partners very recently. It is alleged that Mr. Mehta has committed professional misconduct and breach of trust and deserves to be debarred from the present proceedings.
8. This affidavit has been verified by Mr. Ramlal Thakur by stating that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 (which constitute the entire affidavit) "are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed therefrom".
9. At this stage itself I may note that the deponent Mr. Ramlal Thakur does not verify the contents of his affidavit by claiming that the contents thereof are true and correct to his personal knowledge. In fact, a perusal of para 10 of the affidavit shows that he had no personal knowledge in relation to the allegations made by him against Mr. Mehta, Advocate, and these allegations have been made, at best, on the basis of information derived by the deponent upon discussion with ex-partners of the defendant firm in the office of the defendant's counsel.
10. I may at this stage also note that the affidavit, apart from stating that significant confidential information (claimed to have been given to Mr. Mehta in the meetings and conferences that he is claimed to have CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 4 of 20 held with the ex-partners and advocates of the defendant firm) has been used/misused and exploited by him in the course of the present proceedings as to what is that significant, vital and confidential information has not been specifically detailed in the affidavit.
11. I may also note at this stage itself that the affidavit has been filed without prior permission of the Court on 10.08.2011 i.e. one day prior to the date of hearing fixed in the case for hearing the arguments of the defendant on the plaintiff's suit under Section 49 of the Act, even though Mr. Mehta had been appearing on behalf of the plaintiff since 03.05.2010. Therefore, this objection has been raised after the expiry of more than 15 months from the date that Mr. Mehta first appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.
12. When the matter was taken up on 11.08.2011, in view of the objections raised by the defendant, defendant's arguments in defence to the suit could not be heard. The said hearing got derailed. Mr. Mehta was visibly perturbed on account of the personal allegations made against him by the defendant, and was granted time to file his affidavit in response. The matter was adjourned to 19.08.2011 on which date Mr. Ramlal Thakur was directed to remain present. However, on 19.08.2011, the defendant again sought an adjournment on personal grounds of Mr. Mahinder Rana, learned counsel for the defendant. The matter was adjourned to 01.09.2011 while making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in any circumstances.
13. On 01.09.2011, the matter was again adjourned since Mr. Ramlal Thakur was not present. On 02.09.2011, the statement of Mr. Ramlal CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 5 of 20 Thakur was recorded and the letter of authority tendered by him in Court was exhibited as Ex.DW1/A. Arguments were heard and order reserved.
14. Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the defendant has made only one legal submission. He submitted that Mr. Mehta has not filed his vakalatnama and there is no express written authorization, authorizing him to appear on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, according to Mr. Rana, Mr.Mehta is not authorized to appear on behalf of the plaintiff. In support of this submission he has relied upon the provisions of the CPC, the Delhi High Court Rules and also the various decisions which shall be referred to a little later.
15. Despite my repeatedly asking Mr. Rana to point out the co- relation between the present suit and the case of Glencore Grain v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain & Company, Ex. P.No. 72/2009, and FAO(OS) 17/2009, wherein Mr. Mehta had appeared as a counsel on behalf of the present defendant, Mr. Rana has not been able to make any submission in this regard. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Rana to explain as to what is the confidential and significant information that, according to the defendant, Mr. Mehta, Advocate derived during the meetings and conferences with the officers/ex-partners of the defendant's firm and during conferences with the defendant's advocates and senior advocate which, according to them, Mr. Mehta has misused in these proceedings against the defendant. However, Mr. Rana is absolutely blank and has not been able to point out any so called confidential or significant information. In fact the entire thrust of CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 6 of 20 the argument of Mr. Rana is at variance with the affidavit filed by Mr. Ramlal Thakur on behalf of the defendant. What has been argued by Mr. Rana is that Mr. Mehta is not duly authorized to plead the case of the plaintiff, whereas in the affidavit of Mr. Ramlal Thakur, the allegation against Mr. Mehta, Advocate is of professional misconduct and breach of trust on the basis that he had derived significant, vital and confidential information from the defendants wile handling Ex. P. No.72/2009 and FAO (OS) 17/2009.
16. At this stage it would be appropriate to also take note the reply filed by Mr. Mehta in the form of his own affidavit. Mr. Mehta expresses his anguish and regret at, what he claims to be, completely false allegations made by Mr. Ramlal Thakur in his aforesaid affidavit. He also expresses shock and pain that the said affidavit has been filed through a counsel. He submits that the said affidavit is false and motivated. He prays that after being satisfied about the correctness (or the lack of it) of the affidavit of Mr. Ramlal Thakur this Court may, if satisfied, initiate contempt proceedings against Mr.Ramlal Thakur for his conduct.
17. Mr. Mehta categorically denies that there is any conflict of interest in his appearing for the plaintiff in the present case, only on account of he is having drafted the appeal and appeared in RFA(OS) 17/2009 on behalf of the defendant herein. He further denies that at no point of time any confidential information has been given to him by the officers and partners of the defendant which may, in any manner, bring CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 7 of 20 about any conflict of interest. He states that there was no occasion for sharing any such confidential information.
18. Mr. Mehta disclose that the only occasion when he did the work on a matter of the defendant was some time towards the end of year 2008 and beginning of the year 2009. The defendant's advocate Mr.N.N.Aggarwal had engaged Mr. Mehta to prepare the first draft of an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CS(OS) No.541/2008. Mr. Mehta submits that the case of Glencore Grain has nothing to do with the present case, and Glencore Grain is a different entity and the award in that case is a different award. Mr. Mehta states that his limited role was to prepare the first draft of the appeal and to forward the draft to the defendant's advocate. During the preparation of the draft of the appeal, his only and limited interaction was with the advocate of the defendant. He states that there was no question or occasion for the so-called ex-partners of the defendant firm to deal with or discuss the case, which is the subject matter of this case. No such discussion ever took place. Mr. Mehta submits that the present plaintiff was not concerned with, and not a party to the proceedings in the Glencore case and, therefore, there is no connection between the present case and the Glencore Grain case. Mr. Mehta states that he was never involved, and never participated on behalf of the defendant in the Glencore case (Execution Petition No.72/2009). Mr. Mehta submits that on the question of enforcement of foreign award under CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 8 of 20 Sections 48 and 49 of the Act, there is no occasion for the plaintiff to rely on any confidential information, and none has been relied upon.
19. No further opportunity was sought by the defendant to file any further affidavit to controvert the statement made by Shri Jayant K.Mehta in his affidavit. The said averments made by Mr. Jayant K.Mehta have gone unrebutted.
20. Mr. Rana submits that M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co. were engaged by the plaintiff vide vakalatnama dated 28.02.2011 executed by the power of attorney of the plaintiff Mr. Deepak Goyal. The power of attorney of Mr.Deepak Goyal given by the plaintiff, alongwith the vakalatnama executed in favour of M/s O.P.Khaitan & Co., solicitors and advocates, was filed along with I.A.No.3599/2011. Mr. Rana submits that this vakalatnama given to M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co. does not specifically authorized Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, advocate to appear on behalf of plaintiff. Mr. Rana vehemently places reliance on Order 3 Rule 4 CPC which states that no pleader shall act for any person in any court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other duly authorized person by or under a power of attorney to make such appointments. Mr. Rana submits that there is no appointment of Mr. Jayant K.Mehta by document in writing signed by the plaintiff, or by the plaintiff's recognized agent or some other person authorized under power of attorney by the plaintiff. Mr. Rana also places reliance on Chapter V Rule 1 of Part B of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, which states that an advocate on his filing a CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 9 of 20 Vakalatnama duly executed by a party shall be entitled to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and prosecute all the proceedings that may be taken in respect of such matter. He submits that to act and plead, a vakalatnama is required to be filed by an advocate and without a vakalatnama an advocate cannot act or plead. Mr. Rana has relied on Section 119 CPC to submit that Mr. Jayant K.Mehta is not authorized to address this Court on behalf of the plaintiff as Delhi High Court Rules is not so authorized.
21. Mr. Rana also places reliance on Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Offshore Enterprises Inc. AIR 1993 Bombay 217; Shanti Swarup vs. Mahinder Kumar & Ors. 29(1986) DLT 205; Prafullachandra Bidwai vs. AIIMS & Anr. AIR 2001 Delhi 19; Prafullachandra Bidwai vs. AIIMS & Anr. 2001 (57) DRJ 345 (DB) (Referred to as Praffula Chandra II); Prafullachandra Bidwai vs. AIIMS & Anr. 104(2003) DLT 728 (DB.) (Referred to as Praffula Chandra III); Berjesh Goyal & Anr. v. Daily Foods (India), AIR 2009 Delhi 118.
22. On the other hand, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta has relied on Order 3 Rule 5 CPC which states that no pleader, who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only, shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself disclosing the name of the parties to the suit, the name of the party for whom he appears and the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear. The proviso of the sub rule (5) states that noting in the sub rule shall apply to any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 10 of 20 any party by any other pleader, who has been duly appointed to act in court on behalf of such party. Mr. Mehta submits that, admittedly, M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co., Advocates have been engaged by the plaintiff by signing a vakalatnama which has been placed on record. The counsel from M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co. is appearing with Mr. Jayant K.Mehta and it is M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co., who have appointed Mr. Jayant K.Mehta to plead the case of the plaintiff before this court. He submits that in view of the aforesaid clear position, there is absolutely no merit in the submission of Mr. Rana.
23. Having heard the submissions of learned counsels, I am of the view that the affidavit filed by Mr. Ram Lal Thakur dated 10.08.2011 has no merit and is a clear attempt on the part of the defendant to derail the present proceeding and cause obstruction in the progress of the case. As already noted hereinabove, the said affidavit came to be filed after over 15 months of the first date on which date Mr. Jayant K.Mehta appeared in these proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff. There is no explanation why no such objection was raised at the earliest opportunity and on successive date on which Mr. Jayant K.Mehta appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Pertinently, Mr. Mehta appeared on behalf of plaintiff and cross-examined Mr. Ram Lal Thakur on 02.02.2011. Even on that date, no such objection was raised by the defendant.
24. The affidavit of Mr. Ram Lal Thakur clearly shows that it is not founded upon his own personal knowledge. He does not disclose from whom he has derived the information, which is contained in his CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 11 of 20 affidavit. The said affidavit is clearly hear-say and cannot be believed. It is not explained as to why the person having personal information and knowledge of the facts stated in the said affidavit of Mr. Ram Lal Thakur has not himself/herself filed an affidavit.
25. Apart from claiming that Mr. Jayant K. Mehta had been engaged by the defendant in Ex. P. No.72/2009, the defendant has not placed on record a single document on record to substantiate the said averment. On the other hand, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta has categorically denied any such engagement/appointment. The grievance/objection of the defendant is that Mr. Jayant K.Mehta had been engaged by the defendant to appear in RFA(OS) 17/2009 and during the course of that proceeding, he had held conferences and meetings with the officer and ex-partners of the defendant and the advocate of the defendant and derived significant confidential information. Pertinently, the present proceeding is a wholly independent proceeding from the proceedings in RFA(OS) 17/2009. Apart from the defendant herein, the other party in those proceedings was Glencore Grain, whereas the plaintiff in the present suit is Italgrani S.P.A which now stands substituted by Progetto Grano S.P.A. It is not even stated by Mr. Ram Lal Thakur in his affidavit as to how Italgraini S.P.A. and Progetto Grano S.P.A. are in any manner connected with Glencore Grain, and how the subject matter of the two proceedings is same. The submission made by Mr. Jayant K.Mehta that he was engaged only to draft the aforesaid first appeal and in that process, he interacted only with the counsel for the defendant in that case namely, Mr. N.N.Aggarwal has not been controverted and there is CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 12 of 20 no reason to disbelieve the same. Most importantly, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur has neither disclosed in his affidavit, nor is it disclosed by Mr. Rana to the court even at the time of hearing, despite repeatedly and specifically being questioned on this aspect, as to what is that so- called significant and vital confidential information that Mr. Jayant K.Mehta is claimed to have derived while acting for the defendant in the matter of Glencore Grain, which Mr. Jayant K.Mehta is claimed to have misused or exploited against the defendants in these proceedings. It is clear that in fact, there is none.
26. The present proceedings are proceedings under Section 49 of the Act whereby the plaintiff is seeking enforcement of a foreign award. In that respect the plaintiff through Mr. Jayant K.Mehta has led the arguments only to satisfy the court that the conditions laid down in Section 47 of the Act are satisfied. The hearing had been adjourned to enable the counsel for the defendant to make his submissions, and to make out a case, if at all, falling under Section 48(1) & (2) of the Act. A bare reading of the Section 47 & 49 of the Act would show that there is no information, much less confidential information, pertaining to the defendant that the plaintiff needs to even put forward before the Court while seeking to enforce a foreign award. As stated by Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, the defendant's allegation about the so-called misuse of the so-called confidential information by Mr. Jayant K.Mehta is a mere red herring.
27. An advocate is not precluded from appearing against a party, on whose behalf he or she may have earlier appeared in another totally CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 13 of 20 unconnected and unrelated action in any court or forum, particularly when the counsel has not derived any privileged or confidential information from such a party. Obviously, the counsel would be precluded from appearing against a party who has retained the services of the counsel generally. It would also depend on the terms on which the counsel has been retained, whether the counsel is so precluded or not. The bottom line is that no advocate can be required to accept a retainer or brief or to advise pleadings in any case, where he has previously advised another party or in connection with the case, and he ought not to do so in any case in which he would be embarrassed in the discharge of his duty by reason of confidence reposed in him by the other party of his action would be inconsistent with the obligation of any retainer held by him (see Rule 13 of Volume V, Part G, Chapter 6 part B of the Rules relating to proceedings in the High Court of Delhi). In any such case it is his duty to refuse to accept such retainer brief or to advise or to draw pleadings; and in case such retainer or brief has been inadvertently accepted, to return the case along with the fee, if any received by him.
28. The facts of the present case do not satisfy any of the aforesaid conditions, as already discussed above. The allegations made by Mr. Ram Lal Thakur against Mr.Jayant K.Mehta are totally devoid of substance and are, therefore, rejected. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur by making said allegations has sought to most unjustifiably tarnish the good name and reputation of Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, advocate and should take responsibility and suffer consequences therefor. By his aforesaid CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 14 of 20 conduct he has also derailed the present proceedings and avoided the progress of the case. As notices above, the case had been adjourned for hearing of the defendant's arguments to 02.08.2011 and thereafter to 11.08.2011. The hearing of the case has been delayed by over three weeks in the process. It has also consumed precious judicial time which could have been better utilized by this Court.
29. I now turn to the objections raised by Mr. Rana that Mr. Mehta is not authorized to appear and plead the case of the plaintiff as he does not hold a vakalatnama from the plaintiff. This submission of Mr. Rana needs only to be stated to be rejected. The said submission, in my view, is preposterous. Despite Rule 5 of Order 3 CPC being brought to the notice of Mr. Rana and despite the fact that Mr.Mehta stated that he was only pleading the case of the plaintiff and was not acting on behalf of the plaintiff, for which purpose M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co. have been engaged by the plaintiff by filing a vakalatnama, Mr. Rana went on with his arguments for over an hour and cited the aforesaid decisions one after another (none of which even touch upon Order 3 Rule 5 CPC) without explaining as to what relevance they have in the facts of the present case.
30. In Prafulla Chandra Bidwai (supra) the learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the plaintiff's application to seek the setting aside of the dismissed suit and restoration of the suit . The said application had not been filed or signed by the plaintiff, and the counsel who had moved the application had not filed his vakalatnama in conformity with the Order 3 rule 4 CPC and Chapter V Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 15 of 20 (original side) Rules, 1967. The same had been filed only subsequently. The Court took the view that the mandatory provision contained in Order 3 CPC as well as in Delhi High Court (original side) Rules, 1967 should have been complied with. I may note two aspects of the matter. Firstly, this decision does not deal with the Order 3 Rule 5 CPC at all. It only deals with Order 3 Rule 4 CPC. Secondly, as Mr.Rana has himself pointed out this decision has been reversed by the Division Bench in Praffulla Chandra II (supra) and in Prafful Chandra III (supra). In the earlier decision, the Division Bench relied upon Section 196 of the Contract Act, which deals with the effect of ratification. The Division Bench held that the act of plaintiff filing an affidavit with fresh vakalatnama in favour of the counsel Mr.Anil Kumar Kher amounted to ratifying all his acts. The fact that Mr.Anil Kumar Kher had been appearing in the suit prior to its dismissal, including at the stage of admission and denial of documents was also taken into account by the Court. The Division Bench held that the act of an advocate without written authority does not ipso facto become null and void, when it is ratified later on. The Division Bench in the subsequent decision observed that Rule 1 and 4 of the CPC are Rules of procedure. Their primary object is to facilitate the Court proceedings and not to cause obstructions or inconvenience. Object of Rule 4 is to have the authority in favour of a pleader, to prevent perpetration of fraud by an unauthorized person taking steps without consent or knowledge of a party and to avoid wastage of time of Courts. These decisions have no application in the facts of this case, as it is not even the case of CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 16 of 20 Mr.Rana that M/s. O.P. Khaitan & Co. have not been duly appointed by a Vakalatama given by the plaintiff through its Power of Attorney holder.
31. Reliance placed on Shanti Swarup (supra) is wholly misplaced. This judgment merely held that the appointment of an advocate can be brought to an end by the advocate or by the client himself but this engagement does not come to an end without the leave of the Court. I fail to understand for what purpose Mr. Rana has relied upon this judgment.
32. In ONGC (Supra) the Bombay High court after examination of the various provisions of law returned the following findings:-
"(a) An Advocate is not entitled to act in a professional capacity as well as constituted attorney of a party in the same matter or cause. An Advocate cannot combine the two roles. If a firm of Advocates is appointed as Advocates by a Suitor, none of partners of the Advocates' firm can act as recognised agent in pursuance of a power of attorney concerning the same cause.
(b) The existing practice followed by the firm of advocates/solicitors/attorneys particularly in case of non-resident clients combining the two roles is opposed to law and is required to be discontinued forthwith.
33. Mr. Rana has not explained as to how the said findings impinge on the right of Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, advocate to plead the case of the plaintiff when M/s. O.P.Khaitan & Co. have been appointed as the advocates on record to act and plead on behalf of the plaintiff vide vakalatnama dated 28.02.2011. The said judgment may have a bearing on the manner in which the said vakalatnama has been executed on behalf of the plaintiff by Mr. Deepak Goyal, who is himself CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 17 of 20 an advocate with M/s.O.P.Khaitan & Co. However, that is not the submission of Mr. Rana. Mr. Rana has not questioned the validity of the vakalatnama issued by the plaintiff in favour of M/s O.P.Khaitan & Co. His attack is only focussed and directed against the appearance of Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, advocate in this Court to plead the case of the plaintiff.
34. In Berjesh Goyal (supra) this Court after examining the relevant provisions held that there is no bar on a pleader duly authorized by a party under a Vakalatnama to engage another pleader to plead the case on his or her behalf. The power to plead `Pleader' would include within its scope and ambit, the right to examine witnesses, to conduct admission and denial, to seek adjournments and to address arguments etc. as may be authorized. Such pleader further would not have the power to compromise a case, withdraw a case or do any other act which may compromise the interest of his or her client. In procedural matters it is not only expedient but also in the interest of speedy delivery of justice that young lawyers who work with pleaders duly authorized by clients are permitted to appear in matters. Mr. Rana distinguishes this judgment by contending that this judgment pertained to the junior advocate work with an advocate, and does not pertain to any other advocate who is not a `junior' with an advocate who is engaged to act and plead on behalf of a party.
35. The distinction sought to be made by Mr. Rana is completely unfounded. Under the CPC, or the Delhi High Court Rules no such distinction is made out. Merely because the Court dealt with the CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 18 of 20 specific case of a right of a `junior' advocate to plead the case of a party, it does not mean that the position would be any different for a counsel who may be engaged to appear and plead the case of a party, by another advocate who is authorized by a vakalatnama to act and plead the case of the party. I, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the completely fallacious plea of Mr. Rana.
36. I am sorry to say that Mr. Rana has been completely insensitive to the immense waste of time of this Court, firstly, in advancing worthless arguments, and thereafter in dealing with them by a detailed judgment. Responsible counsels should realize that they too owe a duty to the Courts not to waste the time of the Court by advancing such frivolous arguments, as done in the present case by Mr.Rana.
37. For the aforesaid reasons, I reject the objection raised by the defendant against Mr.Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate, for appearing and pleading the case of the plaintiff on all grounds, and I hold that there is no impropriety on the part of the Mr. Jayant K.Mehta, and there is no conflict of interest in his appearing on behalf of the plaintiff in the present case merely because he appeared for the defendant in the case of Glanco Grain FAO (OS) 17/2009. The objection raised by the defendant was clearly to derail the present proceedings. I, therefore, direct as follows:-
(1) The defendant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac to Mr.Jayant K.Mehta, Advocate, within one week for subjecting him to unnecessary harassment. CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 19 of 20 (2) The defendant is directed to pay costs of Rs. 1 lac to the Advocates' Welfare Fund within one week for their conduct of seeking to interfere in the course of justice and to derail the present proceedings and unnecessarily waste the precious time of this Court.
(3) The right of the defendant to defend these proceedings shall be conditional upon the payment of the aforesaid costs.
38. List the matter on 19.09.2011 for defendant's arguments/further proceedings, as the case may be.
(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 hk/mamta CS(OS) No. 2594A/2000 Page 20 of 20