S&P LAW Associates

15/12/2025

Alleged Extramarital Affair Of Husband Insufficient To Constitute Abetment Of Wife's Su***de: Delhi High Court.

13/04/2024

ഒരു പാവം സ്തീയുടെ ഉപജീവന മാര്‍ഗ്ഗം തടയാന്‍ ഉളള തിരു.കോര്‍പ്പറേഷന്‍ ശ്രമം (ചില രാഷ്ട്രീയ കളികള്‍) പരാജയപ്പെടുത്തി...

28/02/2024

Shout out to my newest followers! Excited to have you onboard! Siva Seshu Babu Chodisetty, Guna Guna, Jayamanju GT, Sudher San, Mahesh Goudar Mahesh Goudar, Syed Zafar, Theju Raj Raj, Mujafar Mulla, RudraSwamy C M Rudra, Honnur Sab Honnur Swamy, Rathna Ranganath, ಯಲ್ಲು ಯಲ್ಲು, Ravi K M, Mahantesh MN Sirwar, Hanumanta K Batappanavara

27/02/2024

26/02/2024

NI Act S.138

17/02/2024

Today, the Supreme Court resumed its hearing on the crucial point of whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.

The issue, which is relevant for members of the Bar, emerged from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007. The Commission had ruled that the services rendered by lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Needless to say, the said provision defines Service.

It was held that a Lawyer may not be responsible for the favorable outcome of a case as the result/outcome does not depend upon only the lawyer's work. However, if there was a deficiency in rendering services promised, for which he receives consideration in the form of a fee, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act.

Moreover, it was also opined that the contract between the client and a lawyer is bilateral. On receipt of fees, the commission said the lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client.

Yesterday (on February 14), the Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal partly heard the matter. The details of the written submission can be read here.

Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, appearing on behalf of the appellant, made his submissions during today's hearing.

At the outset, the Counsel explained that the Consumer Protection Act was conceived from a different perspective, with commercial activity on one side and poor individual litigants on the other.

“Because my, lords, when the Consumer protection act came there was a huge discussion that whether even the lawyers should be permitted to appear before Consumer Forum. Because it is between the consumer and commercial entity.,” Hooda added.

Distinguishing legal profession from the doctors (who are not entitled to this kind of immunity), Hooda said that in the latter, the relationship is direct between the doctors and patient. Further, doctors and their clinics can advertise without any bar, unlike Advocates (who are prohibited from soliciting their work).

He submitted that there are alternative remedies available. In this regard, he apprised the Bench that under the Advocates Act, 1961, complaints against an Advocate are entertained by the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India.

The Counsel also added that the Courts perform a sovereign function, and a lawyer's duty is to assist the Court in performing this function. Reading from his written submission, he submitted:

“Needless to say that the Courts perform a sovereign function while deciding a lis between two private individuals, or between a private individual and the government, or between government instrumentalities. The function of a Lawyer is primarily to assist the Court in performing this sovereign function, which is unlike all other professions be it a Doctor, Engineer, Chartered Accountant, etc. Still further, as has been briefly mentioned hereinabove, the Law casts a duty on the Lawyer to act as an Officer of the Court rather than merely as representing the interests of her Client.”

“In the course of proceedings before a Court of Law a Lawyer has to comport herself to a standard that upholds the Rule of Law even at the risk of antagonizing her Client, who may advice her Lawyer to act against the Law for her selfish private Interests. Thus, unless an Officer of the Court i.e. a Lawyer is insulated and afforded a certain amount of immunity and independence, she cannot be expected to carry out her functions as a Lawyer in accordance with the mandate of the Law.,” the Counsel elaborated.

He further placed his reliance on D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 221, to submit that the independence of a Lawyer is as important as that of a Judge while moving the wheels of the Chariot of Justice.

However, Justice Trivedi asked if anyone could be prevented from filing false suits or complaints before the Court of Law. “Ultimately, they fail. But you cannot prevent them from filing.”

In the end, Hooda averred that the Consumer Protection Act is conceived in a manner that the lawyers' service does not fit into the scheme of the Act.

It may be noted that there must be a service contract for any service provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, no contract is maintainable unless there is a consideration. On this issue, he averred that consideration is not a sine qua non for the engagement of a Lawyer. To support this, the Counsel gave an example of pro bono litigation.

“I am as good a lawyer for him as I am a lawyer to another person who has paid me five laks rs.,” he asserted.

The matter is posted next Wednesday for further hearing.

Case Title: BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SIGH MALIK vs. D.K.GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES., Diary No.- 27751 - 2007

29/01/2024

The Supreme Court recently passed a general order directing its registry, all High Courts and subordinate courts to stop the practice of mentioning the caste or religion of litigants in case papers.

18/04/2023

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies In Plaint Averments Not A Sufficient Reason To Reject Plaint : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because there are some inconsistent averments in the plaint.

For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal observed.

In this case, the plaintiffs filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bangalore claiming a declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Allowing the application filed by the defendants, the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. This order was upheld by the High Court.

In appeal before the Apex Court, it was contended that the Courts have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint by pointing out inconsistent statements made in the plaint.

In this regard, the bench observed:

"For dealing with an application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC, only the averments made in the plaint and the documents produced along with the plaint are required to be seen. The defence of the defendants cannot be even looked into. When the ground pleaded for rejection of the plaint is the absence of cause of action, the Court has to examine the plaint and see whether any cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint."

The court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court have gone into the question of correctness of the averments made in the plaint by pointing out inconsistent statements made in the plaint.

"After having perused the plaint and in particular paragraphs 16 and 17, we find that the cause of action for filing the suit has been pleaded in some detail. It is pleaded how the first appellant acquired title to the property. The facts constituting alleged cause of action have been also incorporated in paragraph 17.We are of the view that merely because there were some inconsistent averments in the plaint, that was not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the cause of action was not disclosed in the plaint. The question was whether the plaint discloses cause of action. As observed earlier, the plaint does disclose cause of action. Whether the appellants will ultimately succeed or not is another matter.", the court observed while allowing appeal and restoring the suit.

Case details

G. NAGARAJ vs B.P. MRUTHUNJAYANNA | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 311 | CA 2737 OF 2023 | 11 April 2023 | Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal

Courtesy... Livelaw.in

18/01/2023

Sec 138 NI Act - Accused Relies On Income Tax Returns To Show Complainant Did Not Have Financial Capacity; Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal