Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary vs Suhas Jayant Natawadkar

Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary ... Petitioner

Vs.

Suhas Jayant Natwadkar ... Respondent

O R D E R

This is an application for restoration of SLP No.18481/2009 dismissed

on 27.2.2009. Having noticed certain irregularities in the application for

restoration this Court made an order on 30.10.2009, relevant portion of

which is extracted below:

"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 show 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.

2

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 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 Advocate-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 Advocate-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

Advocate-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 effects 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 very purpose of having the system of Advocate-on-

Record would get defeated.

3

6. The question that arises for reconsideration is whether an

Advocate-on-Record can file appearance 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

Advocate-on-Record and to avoid the misuse of the system, and

to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective assistance of

the Advocate-on-Record, a solution has to be found.

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

Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association to

assist us to find appropriate solutions and provide necessary

checks and balances. The Registry is directed to furnish copies

of this order to the said Associations."

2. In response to it, we have received the following suggestions from the

Advocate-on-Record Association, the Supreme Court Bar Association and

from several counsel:

1. Suggestions by Supreme Court Bar Association

(by Mr. Ram Jethmalani through Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr.Adv.)

2. Suggestions filed by Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.

(on behalf of Non-AOR Association)

3. Suggestions by Mr. KN Bhatt, Sr.Adv.

(on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association)

4. Suggestions on behalf of AOR Association

(filed by Mr.D.K. Garg, Adv.)

5. Brief Note of problems and suggestions filed by

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Adv.

4 6. Suggestions by C.Radha Krishna, Adv.

7. Suggestions filed by Mr. Bijan Ghosh, Adv.

8. Suggestions filed by Mr. Haroim Sharma,

9. Suggestions filed by Mr. K.R. Chitra, Adv.

10. Suggestions filed by Dr. Parvin Kumar Mutreja, Adv.

11. Suggestions filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, Adv.

12. Suggestions filed by Mr. D.K. Sinha, Av.

13. Suggestions filed by Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Adv.

3. We are informed by the registry that the Rule Committee of the

Supreme Court of India is already seized of most of the issues that have been

raised in these suggestions. Therefore we deem it appropriate to place all

these suggestions before the Rule Committee so that the Committee can take

note of the same while formulating new or additional rules or while

suggesting amendments to the existing rules.

4. We may however like to refer to one common grievance which has a

bearing on the availability of adequate number of Advocates-on-Record in

regard to the AOR examinations. The examinations are held in the following

four subjects:

(i) Practice and procedure of the Supreme Court

(ii) Drafting

(iii) Elementary knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts and

Professional Ethics

(iv) Leading cases.

5

The grievance is in regard to the third paper relating to Elementary

Knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts, being a part of the AOR

examination.

5. There is considerable force in the said submissions. Elementary

knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts might have been necessary five

decades ago. But with the availability of appropriate computer software and

the capacity of the AORs to engage Accountants, AORs may not require

any knowledge of Book Keeping and Accounts to such an extent as to pass

an examination in that subject. The interests of the institution would be

better served if the third paper is made purely one relating to Advocacy &

professional ethics, by deleting the part relating to Book Keeping and

Accounts. Many candidates fail in the Book Keeping and Accounts paper

and many are deterred from taking the AOR examination because of the

Book Keeping and Accounts paper being a part of the AOR examination. If

the same is deleted, there would be better participation of the members of

the Bar in the Advocate-on-Record examination thereby increasing number

of Advocates-on-Record, which will improve the entire system of filing

cases and representation. We therefore commend appropriate amendment to

the AOR Examination Regulation in this behalf.

6 The IA for restoration is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.2500 as

costs with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

. ................................................J.

( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi .................................................J.

October 12, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )

7