Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kapur vs Janak Kapur & Anr. on 6 December, 2021
$~24 & 25 (Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 192/2021 & I.A. 10569/2021
SANDEEP KAPUR ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.
Shivek Trehan, Mr. Rajat Soni,
Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil & Mr.
Subhoday Banerjee, Advs.
along with Mr. Sandeep Kapur
(Plaintiff)
Ms. Niharika, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.
versus
JANAK KAPUR & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal, Adv.
+ CS(OS) 188/2018, I.A. 5655/2018, I.A. 12617/2018, I.A.
112/2019 & I.A. 3869/2019
SMT. BINDIYA K. PUJJI & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv.
versus
SHRI SANDEEP KAPUR & ANR ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajeev Virmani, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.
Shivek Trehan, Mr. Rajat Soni,
Mr. Pranay Mohan Govil & Mr.
Subhoday Banerjee, Advs.
along with Mr. Sandeep Kapur
(Defendant 1)
Ms. Niharika, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI CS(OS) 192/2021 & connected matter Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (Oral)
% 06.12.2021
I.A. 3869/2019 in CS(OS) 188/2018 and I.A. 10569/2021in CS(OS)
192/2021
1. These are litigations among the members of one family. IA
10569/2021in CS (OS) 192/2021 and IA 3869/2019 in CS (OS)
188/2018, at the instance of Mr. Sandeep Kapur, the plaintiff in
CS(OS) 192/2021 and Defendant 1 in CS (OS) 188/2018, object to the
appearance of the advocate, who presently appears on behalf of the
plaintiffs in CS (OS) 188/2018 and on behalf of the defendants in CS
(OS) 192/2021.
2. I have heard Mr. Virmani, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants in these applications at considerable length. Mr. Virmani
took me through the history of these litigations and to the involvement
of Mr. Singhal in the confabulations which took place during the
course of the discussions in this matter.
3. The case set out in these applications, qua the involvement of
Mr. Singhal is that Mr. Singhal was a close friend of the family and
closely associated with Mr. L.R. Kapur, the late father of the parties in
these disputes. Mr. Virmani submits that his client was completely
unaware of the involvement of Mr. Singhal in these proceedings. On
3rd December, 2017, the applicant received a legal notice from one Mr.
M. K. Dhingra, advocate, who purported to represent the clients on
whose behalf, presently, Mr. Singhal is appearing. Following the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
notice, CS (OS) 188/2018 was filed by Mr. Dhingra before this Court,
on behalf of the said parties. Mr. Singhal appeared on behalf of Mr.
Dhingra in the said proceedings on 8th January, 2019 and 11th
February, 2019. It was only thereafter, submits Mr. Virmani, that the
applicants came to know that Mr. Dhingra was actually a chamber
junior/associate of Mr. Singhal. On learning this fact, the applicants, in
October, 2019, filed IA 3869/2019 (one of the applications being
decided today) for a direction to Mr. Singhal not to represent the
plaintiff in CS (OS) 188/2018. The assertion, in the application, on the
basis of which this prayer was made, was that Mr. Singhal had acted
as a mediator among the parties and the parties, including the
applicants in the present case, had exchanged confidences, with
respect to the dispute, with Mr. Singhal. Pointed reference is
contained, in the application, to meetings which are purported to have
taken place in the chamber of Mr. Singhal as well as at the JW
Marriott Hotel, Aerocity, New Delhi, to which, according to the
applicant, he had travelled with Mr. Singhal, in the applicants' car.
Mr. Virmani has drawn my attention to the following paras in IA
3869/2019, wherein the applicants have underscored the involvement
of Mr. Singhal in these proceedings. Paras 6, 9A, 9B, 9C and 9E may
be reproduced thus:
"6. Prior to the filing of the present suit, Mr. S.C. Singhal,
Advocate acting as a mediator, had discussed the subject
matter of the suit with both the parties, being the Plaintiffs
and Defendant No. l with a view to help resolve dispute.
Needless to state that the Defendant No. l has also trusted and
confided in Mr. Singhal, Advocate during the pre-litigation
mediation, and otherwise shared with him the details of his
defence and his version.
*****
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
9. It is submitted that neither Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate
nor his junior/chamber associate who has been working
closely with him for several years from the same chamber
address can be permitted to act and appear against the
Defendant No. 1 in the present matter in view of the
circumstances set out above and explained in the following
paragraphs:-
A. Owing to the close family and personal relations
between the parties and Mr. Singhal, he was requested
to act as a mediator, when the disputes between the
parties were simmering, prior to institution of the
present litigation, and he has acted as such.
B. Both the parties i.e. Plaintiffs and Defendant
No. 1, have met, conferred and consulted with Mr.
Singhal and been advised by him on matters which are
subject matter of adjudication in the present Suit. In
furtherance thereof, Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate had
several meetings with Defendant No. 1 at his Chamber
situated in Delhi High Court. It is worthwhile to note
that acting as a Mediator Mr. Singhal also had meeting
with both the parties i.e. Plaintiffs and Defendant No.l
at this residence situated in Janakpuri.
C. Since it was inconceivable to the Defendant No.
l that Mr. Singhal would act against his interests, the
Defendant No. 1 had already disclosed to, and confided
in Mr. Singhal his defence in the present matter. In this
manner, the Defendant No. l had, in confidence, shared
with Mr. Singhal his stand in the present litigation.
*****
E. That upon the request of Mr. Singhal, Defendant
No. 1 had also arranged a meeting with his relatives.
The said meeting took place on 19.01.2018 at JW
Marriot, Aerocity, New Delhi wherein the Defendant
No. l, Mr. S.C. Singhal and relatives of the parties were
present. In fact, on the said day, the Defendant No.l
and Mr. Singhal travelled together for the meeting.
During this meeting, Mr. Singhal understood from
relatives of the parties their version. All along, the
Defendant No. 1 was led to believe that Mr. Singhal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
was acting as a mediator intending to facilitate
settlement and that was the reason the Defendant No. l
arranged a meeting between him and some of his
relatives and disclosed his version."
4. Mr. Virmani submits that, despite such pointed allusions in the
application to the specific occasions and instances on which Mr.
Singhal had met the parties, and had come to learn of confidential
details regarding the dispute and even acted as a mediator, there was
no clear denial, to these facts, in the reply filed by Mr. Singhal. He
submits that the reply merely contains evasive traversals of the
allegations of involvement and that, in view thereof, the involvement
of Mr. Singhal, in the discussions regarding the dispute, which had
taken place from time to time, must be deemed to have been admitted.
Mr. Virmani submits that in view thereof, Mr. Singhal cannot be
permitted to continue to appear on behalf of the defendants in CS (OS)
192/2021 and the plaintiffs in CS (OS) 188/2018.
5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Virmani, has drawn my
attention to Rules 13 and 15 of Volume V, Chapter VI of the Delhi
High Court Rules, which read thus:
"13. 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 on 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 or his action would be inconsistent with the
obligation of any retainer held by him; and in any such case it is
his duty to refuse to accept such retainer or 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.
15. It is not proper for an Advocate to accept a retainer or brief
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
in a case in which he has acted in a Judicial or quasi-judicial
Character as Commissioner or Arbitrator."
6. He submits that, though Rule 15 is not couched in mandatory
terms, it has been enforced by a Division Bench of this Court in
Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta1, authored by B.C. Patel, C. J.
with Badar Durrez Ahmed J. (as he then was) concurring with him. As
such, he submits, the mere fact that the rule may not be couched in
mandatory terms, does not detract from its enforceability. Mr.
Virmani has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Harish Uppal v. U.O.I.2 and Chander
Prakash Tyagi v. Benarsi Das3, specifically highlighting para 34 in
the report in the former and paras 11 to 14 in the latter.
7. Mr. Virmani has highlighted the duty of an advocate which, he
submits, is not merely to his client but also to the Court and to the
opposite party. Having been privy to confidences between the parties
in this case, he submits that, in exercise of its supervisory role that this
Court enjoys over the appearance of the advocates before it, the Court
should restrain Mr. Singhal from appearing on behalf of the parties
whom he represents, as was done by the Division Bench in Amarjit
Singh Kalra1.
8. I have heard Mr. Virmani at length and have also gone through
the records of the case, the statutory provisions and precedents on
which he places reliance.
1 AIR 2005 Del 41
2 (2003) 2 SCC 45
3 (2015) 8 SCC 506
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
9. There can be no gainsaying the position in law that an advocate
owes, to the litigating public, the Court, his client and to the opposite
parties, the highest degree of probity and transparency. Equally, there
can be no dispute with the proposition that, where the Court finds that
the appearance of an advocate, before it, is not in keeping with the
standards expected of the legal profession and is likely to prejudice a
fair espousal and prosecution of the lis, the Court can step in and
restrain such appearance.
10. Having said that, the Court cannot afford to be hypersensitive in
such matters. No doubt, the decisions on which Mr. Virmani placed
reliance, accord precedence to the supervisory role of Courts in
respect of appearance of advocates before it (as opposed to the right of
advocates to merely plead the matter), over the rights conferred on
advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. Nonetheless, the advocate,
too, has an enforceable right to appear on behalf of the party who has
legally authorised him to do so. It is only where such right conflicts
with the propriety of the conduct of the advocate appearing before the
Court, that the Court can give precedence to the latter over the former.
11. I proceed, now to deal with the Rules to which Mr. Virmani
draws attention.
12. Rule 13 may be divided into three distinct "compartments" or
parts.
13. The first part of Rule 13 states that an advocate cannot be
required to accept a retainer or a brief or advise pleadings in a case in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
connection with which he has previously advised another party. This
part of the rule, quite obviously, does not apply, as it deals with the
issue of whether an advocate can be forced to accept a brief in a case
in which he has conflict of interest.
14. The second part of Rule 13 states that an advocate ought not to
accept a retainer or a brief in a case in which he would be embarrassed
in the discharge of his duty by reason of the confidence reposed in him
by the other party or where his action would be inconsistent with the
obligation of any retainer held by him. This part of the rule, too,
though it elucidates a laudatory principle, may not, strictly speaking,
be enforceable by mandamus. The use of the words, "he ought not to
do so", clearly indicates that the rule is advisory in nature. What it
advises against is acceptance of a retainer or a brief by an advocate in
case, by doing so, he would be embarrassed in the discharge of his
duty. Whether an advocate would be embarrassed in the discharge of
his duty or not is, obviously, a matter which has to be left to the
conscience of the concerned advocate. Even if the Court were to
trespass into that realm, and were to form an impression that the
acceptance of the retainer or a brief would embarrass the concerned
advocate, it cannot, on that ground, direct the advocate not to appear,
as the rule is not couched in mandatory terms and merely states that
the advocate ought not to accept such a retainer or a brief. The use of
the word, "embarrassed", too, is contra-indicative of any mandatory
intent of this part of the rule. Where the legislature has consciously
couched the provision in elastic terms such as "ought not to" and
"embarrass", it would not be proper for the Court to impose, on the
provision, an unduly rigid interpretation.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
15. As against this, the third part of Rule 13 is, clearly, mandatory
even as worded. It casts a duty on the advocate, in any case falling
within the first two parts of the rule, to refuse to accept the retainer or
brief or to advise or draw pleadings. In the event any such retainer or
brief has been accepted, the advocate is bound, by law, to return the
case along with the fee received by him. However, this part of the rule
is dependent on the first two parts, and would, therefore, apply only (i)
where the advocate concerned has previously advised the opposite
party in connection with the case, or (ii) where he would be
embarrassed in the discharge of his duty by reason of the confidence
reposed in him by the other party or (iii) where his action would be
inconsistent with the obligation of any retainer held by him. Even if it
were to be presumed that, by virtue of the use of the word "duty", in
this part of the provision, that the provision would be enforceable by
mandamus, such a mandamus could issue only (a) where there is clear
material to indicate that the concerned advocate has advised the parties
in the matter, or (b) where the parties have reposed confidence in him,
or (c) where acting in the matter would be inconsistent with the
obligation of a retainer held by the advocate.
16. As this provision entrenches on the right of an advocate to act
on behalf of a party, which, in my view, is itself a sacrosanct and to an
extent, a fundamental right, it has to be interpreted strictly. It cannot
apply where evidence of existence of the exigencies envisaged by the
provision is not forthcoming. To make matters clearer, it cannot apply
where there is no clear material to indicate that the concerned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
advocate has advised the parties in connection with the case, or been
the repository of confidences in connection with the case, or where the
obligation of any retainer held by the advocate would conflict with his
participation in the proceedings.
17. Rule 15, in my view, is completely inapplicable and, for that
reason, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit
Singh Kalra1 can be of no assistance to the applicant.
18. Rule 15 proscribes the acceptance, by an advocate, of a retainer
or a brief in a case in which he has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial
character. The principle enunciated in this rule is almost axiomatic in
nature. There can be no question of a person, who has acted in a
judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in a matter, thereafter, acting as an
advocate for one or the other party. Though the rule uses the word, "it
is not proper", impropriety, like illegality is, in an appropriate case,
actionable at law. Legality and propriety, in fact, generally walk hand
in hand. The impropriety of an advocate who represents a party, after
having adjudicated on the lis in which he is appearing, is of such a
high order that, irrespective of the language used in the rule, it cannot
be tolerated.
19. There can be no cavil with the decision in Amarjit Singh
Kalra1, which restrained the Counsel who was appearing for the party
on the ground that he had earlier been a judge adjudicating the lis. In
fact, para 2 of the concurring opinion of Ahmed, J., sets out the raison
d'etre, for such an approach and may be reproduced thus:
" In the light of these submissions, I pondered at some
length over the language of the said Rule 15. Why is it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
regarded as improper for an Advocate to accept a retainer or a
brief in a case in which he has acted in a judicial or quasi-
judicial character as Commissioner or Arbitrator? To arrive at
an answer, the question ought to be turned around. What is
the impropriety in a Judge hearing a matter in which he was
earlier an Advocate for one of the parties? The answer lies in
the well known principle of natural justice that "justice must
not only be done but must manisfestly be seen to be done".
People might, even if the Judge decided without bias, have
the lingering suspicion that he was influenced as, he was, at
some earlier stage, an Advocate in the case. So, if this
principle were to apply in the "reverse" situation would it not
apply to the case at hand? It could be argued that while bias
attributable to a judge is a serious matter and any decision
rendered as a consequence of such bias would be a nullity,
here, Mr A is not acting a Judge now. He acted in a judicial
capacity earlier but, now he appears as an Advocate. The
principle of bias would not vitiate his conduct as an advocate.
Although attractive, this line of thought misses an important
aspect. It is improper for Mr A to accept the brief not because
it reflects on the propriety of his conduct in his "avatar" as
an Advocate, but, because it casts doubts on his conduct of
the case when he acted judicially. It is not that there was any
actual bias. There is none. But that is not sufficient, it must
also appear that there was no bias. There could be a
reasonable apprehension in the minds of the litigants that,
because Mr A now appears for the appellant, he knew them
well enough even when he dealt with the matter earlier in his
capacity as a judge. And, this is where the impropriety lies."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Interestingly, in the above passage, Ahmed J., has noted the
contention of the Counsel, before the Bench, that there was a
distinction between a situation in which a judge had earlier been an
advocate for one of the parties, and in which the advocate had earlier
been a judge presiding over that lis. The contention advanced before
the Division Bench was that, where the judge had earlier been an
advocate for one of the parties, there could be a reason to doubt his
impartiality, and, therefore, to seek his recusal from acting as judge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
The position that emerged in a situation in which a judge later acted as
Counsel for one of the parties was, it was sought to be submitted,
fundamentally different. Ahmed J. has noted that this contention was
attractive, but missed an important aspect. The reason for the view
expressed by the Bench has been encapsulated by Ahmed J., in the
concluding sentences in para 2 of his concurring opinion extracted
supra. The learned judge holds that the impropriety of a person, who
had earlier acted as judge presiding over the lis between the parties,
later accepting a brief on behalf of one of the parties as an advocate,
was not because it reflected on his avatar as an advocate, but because
it cast doubts on his conduct in the case when he had, earlier, acted
judicially. This pronouncement, therefore, impliedly acknowledges the
position that acceptance of a brief, by an advocate in a matter in which
he had earlier acted as a judge, was not necessarily reflective of
impropriety in his conduct as an advocate. The reason why such
acceptance could not be tolerated was because of the public perception
that would emerge regarding the impartiality of such persons in his
earlier avatar as a judge, presiding over the lis.
21. For this reason, it is not possible to analogize a situation such as
that which obtained in Amarjit Singh Kalra1 with the fact situation
which obtains in the present case. They are as alike as chalk and
cheese.
22. The decisions in Harish Uppal2 and Chander Prakash Tyagi3
merely highlight the position that the propriety of a person to act on
behalf of a party as an advocate appearing before the Court has to be
accorded precedence over his right to act as an advocate, emanating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
from the Advocates Act, 1961. There can, quite obviously, be no cavil
with this proposition.
23. The legal position, is, therefore, quite clear.
24. The Court has the power to restrain a person from appearing in
the proceedings as an advocate on behalf of one or the other party, if it
feels that such appearance would be illegal or even improper. That
impression has, however, to be based on solid facts. The attitude of the
Court, in such a case, cannot be that of moral police. If an advocate
has earlier acted, qua the lis between the parties, in judicial or quasi-
judicial capacity or even as a mediator, the Court can certainly injunct
him from appearing as an advocate in the matter before it. Equally, if
the concerned advocate has advised one or the other party, or has been
a repository of confidences between the parties, the court may, in an
appropriate case, direct that he should not represent the parties before
the Court. Such directions, if issued, are essentially intended to allow
the purity of the stream of justice to remain unsullied, and are,
therefore, fundamentally ex debito justitiae.
25. The reply filed by the defendants through Mr. Singhal, clearly
denied the allegations that Mr. Singhal ever acted as a mediator
between the parties or advised the parties in the present litigations, or
was a repository of confidences between them. Specifically, one may
reproduce the following paras from the reply:
"(iv) That as regards allegations Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate acted as a Mediator is totally false. It is submitted
that having received the notice from Shri M.K. Dhingra,
Advocate, the Defendant No. 1 who himself is an advocate
since then contacted number of advocates as firstly Shri
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
Pramod Kumar Dubey gave the reply secondly Caveat was
filed through M/s. Karanjawala & Co. Advocates where the
Defendant No. 1 is himself working as an Advocate and
another Caveat was filed by Shri Tanmaya Mehta & Jai Sahai
Endlaw and thereafter on the first hearing the Defendant No. 1
was represented by Shri Rajiv Varmani, Ajay Kapur, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr.
Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr. Shivek Trehan
and Ms. Fareha Ahmad Khan and Mr. Rajat Soni, Advocate
(v) The meeting as mentioned with Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate was not for any advice nor for acting as a Mediator,
on the contrary the defendant wanted that Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate should apply his influence on the plaintiff not to
proceed with any legal battle and there is no question of
Defendant No. 1 asking him to act as a Mediator or he ever
acted as a Mediator. There is no question of discovery about
Shri M.K. Dhingra, Advocate being the associate of Shri S.C.
Singhal, Advocate as this fact was well within the knowledge
of the Defendant No. 1 since Shri Dhingra had been attending
the office of Shri S.C Singhal, Advocate as the Defendant No.
1 had been repeatedly meeting Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate
and Mr. Dhingra together in the course of profession.
(vi) Moreover, plaintiff no. 2 also filed petition for
maintenance being MT No. 280/2019 in the Court of Shri
Varinder Kumar Bansal, Judge Family Courts, New Delhi in
the said proceedings in presence of Defendant No. 1 the
matter was settled and Shri Jai Sahai Endlaw Advocate
appeared in the said proceedings as well on 30.9.2019 on
whose presence the matter was settled by statement of
Defendant No. 1 and that of Smt. Janak Kapur. In these
circumstances the present application is mischievously on the
part of the Defendant No. 1 and there is no question of
violation of any rules of ethic by Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate
and Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate has every right to act as a
counsel for the plaintiff as he had been acting as a lawyer for
them since long and whereas he has never appeared in any
case for the Defendant No. 1. In these circumstances the
application is liable to be dismissed.
*****
5-7 That the contents of para 5 to 7 as stated are wrong,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
false, incorrect and denied. It is denied that Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate acted as a Mediator between the parties. It is
absolutely false that Defendant No. 1 trusted and confidence
with Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate during the pre-litigation
mediation and otherwise assured him the details of defence
and version. In this regard as stated in the preliminary
objections initial notice was issued by Shri M.K. Dhingra,
Advocate on 3.12.2017 and the reply was given by Defendant
No. 1 on 2.1.2018 through Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey,
Advocate disclosing his defence and thereafter on 8.1.2018 he
filed Caveat in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Entry
No. CS(OS) No. 4316/2018 through M/s. Karanjawala & Co.
Advocates and thereafter since the suit was taken for filing,
the registry recorded the filing of the Caveat thus an advance
copy was supplied to M/s. Karanjawala & Co. on 9.3.2018
and in between having come to know that associate of Shri
S.C. Singhal, Advocate has served a notice to which reply was
sent, as stated above, the Defendant No. 1 who is an advocate
was under legal advice filed the said Caveat Petition through
M/s. Karanjwala & Co. much earlier when he met Shri S.C.
Singhal, Advocate and rather requested Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate knowing fully well that Shri M.K. Dhingra,
Advocate has issued the notice to take up this case which case
was not filed even and thus for meeting he chosen Marriat
Hotel in Aero City as he wanted to have meeting in the
presence of one Shri Dinesh Khanna and Shri Rajiv Sahni,
Chartered Accountant. It is submitted that Shri Rajiv Sahni,
CA and his father had also engaged Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate in their litigations. So far as Shri Dinesh Khanna is
concerned, he had also been meeting Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate being related to Shri L.R. Kapur. Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate has clearly told that he cannot handle his matter
without knowing that the Defendant No. 1 has already filed a
Caveat through M/s. Karanjawala & Co. and the Defendant
No. 1 insisted upon that he should make efforts so that no
litigation should be filed and this kind of proceedings cannot
be called as mediation proceedings or that the Defendant No.
1 disclosed his defence or his version. It is submitted that it is
the Defendant No. 1 who tried to won over Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate realizing that his sister and mother are not financial
sound and would not be able to match the legal machinery
which could be hired by the Defendant No. 1 being Lawyer
and rich person and his belief is that Shri S.C. Singhal,
Advocate can be generous to advise and contest the suit of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
plaintiff even without charges. It is submitted that the
Defendant No. l has no right to object the appearance of Shri
S.C. Singhal, Advocate in the present suit nor represent the
plaintiffs in view of the above said facts and circumstances. It
is the Hon'ble Court certainly would not accept that a mighty
person may deprive a weaker person to have proper advice
and proper legal assistance. The Defendant No. 1 has not
disclosed in the whole of the application as to what defence or
version was disclosed to Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate. The
Defendant No. 1 has taken contradictory pleas as in reply to
the notice he has relied upon the Will and stated that it was
not acted upon and at the same time now he relied upon some
oral family settlement in presence of his father in law wherein
all immoveable properties stated to be given to the Defendant
No. l. The Plaintiff have filed the application under Order 11
Rule 12 CPC to have the copy of the Will as stated by him
besides the bank accounts and he himself is avoiding it and
present application has been moved only to delay the
proceedings.
(Emphasis supplied)
26. It may be true that the reply filed by the defendants does not,
particularly, traverse the allegations in the application, point by point,
with respect to Mr. Singhal having travelled with the applicant in his
car to JW Marriott Hotel, or his having met the parties in his chamber,
etc. That, however, cannot, in my view, imperil, fatally, the right of
Mr. Singhal to appear on behalf of the persons whom he represents in
the present proceedings.
27. The factors which, in the Rules to which Mr. Virmani has
drawn my attention and the decisions cited by him, would inhibit the
right of Mr. Singhal to represent the parties are, in my considered
opinion, lacking in the present case. Mr. Singhal has squarely denied
the assertion, of the applicant, that he ever acted as mediator in the
dispute between the parties. He has also denied, unequivocally, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
correctness of the assertion of the applicant that he discussed, with the
parties, in the present case, or advised the parties with respect thereto,
prior to the matter proceeding to court and his donning robes therein.
28. As such, the Court is not in a position to pass an order of
restraint, as is sought in this application, as, in its opinion, the standard
of material that is required for such an order to be passed is lacking.
29. Having said that, it is also correct that Mr. Singhal has, in his
reply to the present application, admitted his association with the
family and the fact that he has handled cases on their behalf. He has
also admitted that, in the meetings in which he was associated, the
present case was subject matter of consideration. According to Mr.
Singhal, however, the only context in which the present case came up
for discussion was because Defendant 1 had, in the said meetings,
requested Mr. Singhal to exert his opinion on the plaintiffs not to
prosecute their case against the defendants. How true this submission
is, cannot be decided in these proceedings. Nonetheless, it does
indicate that, in connection with the present case, meetings had taken
place in which Mr. Singhal participated, irrespective of whether the
exact nature of the dispute, and the facts relating thereto were, or were
not, discussed. While this involvement is not, in my view, enough to
restrain Mr. Singhal, altogether, from appearing in these proceedings,
the court is of the considered opinion that it would be advisable for
Mr. Singhal, as a member of a profession which aspires, at all times,
to nobility, to introspect, and consider whether his continued
appearance in this matter is in consonance with the highest degree of
probity that he, as an advocate, is expected to maintain.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
30. There is, after all, a duty that we all owe, to ourselves, higher
that that owed to the client, the brief, the opposite party, or even the
court. The conscience of the Counsel should be the last sounding
board.s
31. On that notice of advice, the application is dismissed.
CS(OS) 188/2018
32. List CS (OS) 188/2018 along with CS(OS) 192/2021 before the
learned Joint Registrar on 3rd February, 2022.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
DECEMBER 6, 2021
SS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:07.12.2021
18:23:22
