Advocate's Unauthorized Statement In Court Can't Make Client Liable For Contempt: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently observed that a statement made by a counsel without specific instructions from the client can't be treated as a binding undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings. A bench of Justice Manish Kumar thus withdrew contempt charges for alleged wilful disobedience of a Court order against the respondent. The single judge relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in the case of Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society vs. Balwan Singh and others wherein it was held that while lawyers are perceived as their client's agents, they must be specifically authorised to settle and compromise or claim, and possessing merely implied or ostensible authority is insufficient to bind a client to such compromise/claim. The Allahabad HC also stressed that it is always better for a lawyer to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorised agent before making any concession which may, directly or indirectly, affect the rightful legal rights of the client. BRIEFLY PUT, in the present case, a contempt application was filed for an alleged non-compliance with a judgment and order of September 2009. The order in question was passed by the appellate court, setting aside a Single Judge's order and remitting the matter for fresh decision. Crucially, the appellate order had recorded a statement by the counsel for the appellant (Respondent No. 1 herein) which read thus: "At this juncture the counsel for the appellant says that the appellant does not intend to sell any property nor is going to sell the same". The applicants contended that despite this 'undertaking' given before the Appellate Court, the respondent had executed sale deeds. They argued that the respondent was not supposed to execute the sale deeds in light of the interim order of July 2009, which directed that “parties shall not change the nature of property in dispute”, and the subsequent undertaking given in the appeal. Answering the contempt charges, the Respondent no. 1 submitted that he had neither given any undertaking nor instructed his counsel to make any such statement on his behalf before the Appellate Court. He argued that unless an undertaking is based on specific instructions, it cannot bind the party. In his affidavit, the respondent stated that the statement made by his counsel was not within his knowledge; otherwise, he would not have sold the property. It was asserted that if the affidavit is read in totality, it becomes evident that he had not given any instruction to his counsel for making such a statement. Justice Kumar, after perusing the record, found force in the argument of the respondents: "It is found that before the Appellate Court, the counsel for the appellant i.e. respondent no. 1 herein 'says that'. There is nothing on record that the counsel was instructed by the respondent no. 1 to give any undertaking before the Appellate Court. It is the counsel who seems to have stated before the Appellate Court on his own," the bench noted. Regarding the applicant's argument of the applicant that the statement/undertaking given by the counsel must be read conjointly with the interim order of July 2009, to demonstrate contempt, the bench observed thus: "…the Appellate Court had set aside the interim order dated 27.07.2009 while remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge, so it can not be read alongwith the same". Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had withdrawn the writ petition in January 2010, and during the specific period of the withdrawal of the writ petition and special appeal, there existed no interim order. Consequently, the Court found that no contempt was made out against the respondent no. 1 and hence, the contempt application was dismissed.Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Srivastava, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Anand Dubey, Anurag Dixit, Bhupendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pritish Kumar, Indrapal Singh, N.L.Pandey, Pt. S. Chandra, R.S.Tripathi, S.N. Tilhari, Vivek SarswalCase title - Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85Click Here to Read/Download Order

Advocate's Unauthorized Statement In Court Can't Make Client Liable For Contempt: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Advocate's Unauthorized Statement In Court Can't Make Client Liable For Contempt: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers