Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary vs Suhas Jayant Natawadkar

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No.2 of 2009

IN

Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 18481/2009

Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary .... Petitioner

Vs.

Suhas Jayant Natawadkar ..... Respondent

O R D E R

I.A. No.2 of 2009 is an application for restoration of

the special leave petition dismissed for non-prosecution on

20.7.2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in

regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-record.

2. The special leave petition is stated to have been

drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr.D.B.

Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration

is filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, alleging that the case was

listed for hearing on 20.7.2009; that he (Mr. D. B. Vohra,

Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner) was aware of the

listing of the petition; that he informed the clerk of Mr.

Vikas Mahajan, about the listing; that Mr. Vikas Mahajan, 2

Advocate by mistake did not enter this case in his diary and

therefore, Mr. Vikas Mahajan did not appear. There is no

affidavit of Mr. Vikas Mahajan in support of the

application.

3. What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of

the role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of

the application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had

nothing to do with the special leave petition except to lend

his name for filing the petition. He did not take

instructions from the client/petitioner. He did not prepare

the special leave petition. He did not instruct any counsel.

He was not required to or expected to attend the hearing of

the case.

4. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though any

advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, is entitled

to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate other than

the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an

appearance or act for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1,

Rule 6(b) and Order IV]. Rule 5 provides that no advocate

shall be qualified to be registered as advocate-on-record

unless he has undergone training for one year with an

Advocate-on-Record approved by the court and thereafter has

passed the tests held by the court. Rule 6(a) provides that

an Advocate-on-Record shall, on his filing memorandum of

appearance on behalf of a party, accompanied by Vakalatnama 3

duly executed by the party, be entitled to act as well as to

plead for the party in the matter and to conduct and

prosecute before the court all proceedings that may be taken

in respect of the said matter or any application connected

with the same or any decree or order passed therein

including proceedings in taxation and applications for

review. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 6 requires all Advocates-on-

Record to keep such books of account as may be necessary to

show in connection with his practice as an advocate-on-

record, moneys received from or on account of and the money

paid to or on account of each of his client.

5. Unfortunately, many special leave petitions are being

filed with Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders,

without having, or taking, any responsibility for the case.

As a result of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases,

the Advocates-on-record do not appear when the matters are

listed either before the Registrars or before the Chamber

Judge or the Court nor do they take any interest or

responsibility for processing or conducting the case. They

also play no role in preparation of the special leave

petitions, nor ensure that the requirements of the Rules are

fulfilled and defects are cured. If the role of an advocate-

on-record is merely to lend his name for filing cases

without being responsible for the conduct of the case, the 4

very purpose of having the system of Advocates-on-Record

would get defeated.

6. The question that arises for consideration is whether

an Advocate-on-Record can file appearances as mere name-

lender for facilitating filing of petitions by others,

without performing any of the functions associated with an

Advocate-on-Record.

7. In order to enforce discipline in the working of

advocates-on-record and to avoid the misuse of the system,

and to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective

assistance of the Advocates-on-record, a solution has to be

found.

8. We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocates-

on-record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association

to assist us to find appropriate solutions and provides

necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to

furnish copies of this order to the said Associations.

9. List the matter on 30.11.2009.

__________________J.

[ R. V. Raveendran ]

__________________J.

[ G.S. Singhvi ] New Delhi;

October 30, 2009.