Delhi High Court

Progetto Grano S.P.A. vs Shri Lal Mahal Limited on 7 September, 2011

Author: Vipin Sanghi

 *        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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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.

(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.