Lawyer has to respect decision-making right of client: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that a lawyer must respect the decision-making right of the client and any undertaking given to a court cannot be without their requisite authority [Smt Lavanya C & Anr v. Vittal Gurudas Pai Since Deceased By LRS & Ors]..The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol was dealing with a civil appeal in which the appellants (defendants before the trial court) were found guilty of violating their own undertaking.The appellants before the top court claimed that the undertaking before trial court was given without their express authorization. The Court emphasized that a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature. "It is also clear that the lawyer is to respect the decision-making right of the client. It flows from this that any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client," the Bench observed. .The Court refused to accept the appellants' claim as it found that no step had been taken by them to seek discharge from the order recording their undertaking."The appellants herein would have us believe that the undertaking to not alienate the subject matter property, which, undoubtedly, has far-reaching implications, extending over a large period of time. We find such a situation difficult to accept. The undertaking, subject matter of controversy, was given in July 2007 and the miscellaneous application was filed in the year 2011, i.e., after a period of four and a half years. Had the situation been that the said undertaking was without requisite authority, the clients were perfectly within their rights to seek discharge of that order, however, no such step was taken.".The Court thus upheld Karnataka High Court’s decision, finding the appellants (defendant before trial court) guilty of contempt of court under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for violating their undertaking.The controversy related to a property dispute. The appellants had given an undertaking that they will not alienate the property in question. Even as the trial court ultimately dismissed the suit against them, they were accused of having violated the undertaking during the pendency of the case. The question thus arose as to whether they can still be punished for violating the undertaking.The top court noted that the undertaking was given in 2007,but the original suit was dismissed in 2017. The application alleging violation of the undertaking was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC in 2011 and then dismissed by the trial court in 2013. In 2021, the High Court allowed the application in appeal. The appeal against dismissal of the suit was also then pending before the High Court.Thus, the top court held that the appellants can still be punished for violating the interim injunction/undertaking given to the trial court. “There is no question as to the maintainability of the application before this Court. It is also true that the order, in the challenge against which the impugned judgment was passed, was made in the pendency of the original suit and, therefore, it is saved from that bar as well. No error, therefore, can be found on the exercise of such jurisdiction,” the Court said..It added that alienation of the subject matter property despite express orders of the trial court entirely justified the High Court's decision to punish the appellants for contempt of court.The powers of contempt have been provided for the purposes of ensuring that the dignity and majesty of law is always maintained, it remarked.“When there has been an express violation of an order of a Court, as is in the present case, the exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot be faulted with. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, confirmed,” the Court added..However, considering the advanced age of a contemnor, it modified the order for civil imprisonment and instead ordered enhancement of the compensation.“In the attending facts and circumstances, keeping in view the fact that at the time of filing of this appeal, the appellant No.1 herein, who was the contemnor No.3 before the High Court, was 63 years of age and today must approximately be of 68 years of age, we modify the impugned order to the extent that the three months confinement in civil prison shall stand deleted. The rest of the order regarding attachment of property remains undisturbed. Additionally, the amount of compensation payable by the appellants herein shall stand enhanced from a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs,” the Court directed. The appeal was thus partly allowed..Advocates Radhakrishna S Hegde, Prakash Chandra Sharma and Rajeev Singh represented the appellant.Advocates Vikram Hegde and Abhinav Hansaraman represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]