21 Nov 2023 5:10 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against a lawyer if he is found guilty of "manufacturing" an order purportedly passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2016.A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur however discharged the clients who engaged the lawyer to represent their case before the Board after...
The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of Delhi to take action against a lawyer if he is found guilty of "manufacturing" an order purportedly passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2016.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur however discharged the clients who engaged the lawyer to represent their case before the Board after an unconditional apology was tendered for any inconvenience caused to the court, with an undertaking that they shall be careful while filing any document in judicial proceedings in future.
“Keeping in view the unconditional apology, tendered by respondents by way of affidavit, we hereby discharge the respondents from these proceedings. However, we hereby direct the Bar Council of Delhi to take appropriate action, as per law against the said Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate, if, he is found guilty of manufacturing the order dated 02.03.2016 purported to be by IPAB,” the court said.
The bench disposed of a suo motu criminal contempt petition filed pursuant to an order passed by the single judge in December last year while dealing with a trademark infringement suit.
The authenticity of the IPAB order was raised during the proceedings before the single judge after the client, respondents in the suit, was found to be in possession of a document, which was a copy of the IPAB order. The single judge directed the Registrar (Vigilance) along with Registrar (Original Side) to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the authenticity of the order.
After having perused the report, the Single Judge came to a conclusion that no records were available to show that the 2016 order was passed. The single judge then placed the matter before a division bench for contempt action against the respondents suit.
An unconditional apology affidavit was then filed by the contemnor containing the circumstances under which he came in possession of the order copy. It was stated that the lawyer which was engaged before the IPAB had handed over the document which he said was a copy of the order passed by IPAB.
The affidavit further stated that after coming to know that the said document was manufactured, the contemnor filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against the lawyer, which is pending consideration.
However, in view of the affidavit, the bench closed the contempt proceedings.
”In the unconditional apology affidavit, it is also submitted that contempt was not intentional or deliberate, however, it was due to the copy of the order provided by Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate. Accordingly, the respondents sought unconditional apology for any inconvenience caused to this Court and have undertaken that in future they shall be careful while filing any document before any Court or in judicial proceedings or otherwise,” the bench noted.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. VICKY AGGARWAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1146
Click Here To Read Order