It is anguishing to note that such Advocates facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, often encouraging their clients' dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute, the court observed.
At this point of time, the Judiciary is mired in challenges of a very grave nature, perhaps like never before, said the Bombay High court while observing that some litigants and their lawyers have virtually no fear or hesitation in making false statements and misrepresentations before the Court.
With no merit in their case, and in a bid to avert an unfavourable order being passed against them, such dishonest litigants collude with their Advocates to use underhanded means to ensure favourable orders and their consequent success in litigation instituted or defended by them, observed Justice S. J. Kathawalla.
The Court was dealing with a Notice of Motion filed by a defendant in a commercial suit wherein it was asserted that all orders rendered are void ab initio, vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record and that the same should be recalled. It was alleged that whatever is recorded and attributed to be the consent of the Defendant and undertaking given by him is what the Court made him agree upon.
Dismissing the Notice of Motion, the Court came down heavily on the Defendant and his Advocate and said: “A reading of the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion along with the Reply filed thereto by the Plaintiffs, establishes beyond any doubt that since Advocate Mathew Nedumpara is unable to explain the contemptuous conduct of his client and justify the scandalous allegations made by Defendant No.1 against this Court, he has given an answer which is not only incorrect, but is highly irresponsible and not befitting any Advocate appearing before the highest Court of the State, and hence is strongly deprecated.”
With regard to such conduct, the court observed: “Certain Advocates sadly seem to have forgotten the code of ethics that enjoins upon all Advocates, that they are Officers of the Court first and Advocates of their clients only thereafter. It is anguishing to note that such Advocates facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, often encouraging their clients' dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and unfortunately bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute. It has become a vicious and despicable cycle wherein dishonest litigants with malafide intentions seek out unethical Advocates, who for hefty fee and the lure of attracting similar new and unscrupulous clients, conveniently choose to disregard and/or forget all ethics and the code of conduct enjoined upon this august profession. It is with a heavy heart, that Courts at times note that clients have no hesitation in replacing good and honest Advocates, with unscrupulous ones, who go to any dishonest lengths, merely to secure favourable orders for their clients.”
The Court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs.10 Lakhs on the defendant to be paid to the Plaintiff.