Partly allowed

Harish Jayantila Pandya v. Preding Officer Ic Drt 1 Mumbai

DRAT19 Jun 2023MISC APPEAL/107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal by an advocate against adverse observations and costs imposed by a Presiding Officer in a Securitisation Application. The Tribunal held that courts lack authority to penalize advocates for professional misconduct under contempt or the Advocates Act, setting aside the specific cost imposed on the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The cost imposed on the Appellant by the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 is set aside. Other remarks are not expunged as no intemperate language was used.

Harish Jayantila Pandya versus Preding Officer Ic Drt 1… — Service and Employment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 107/2022

¶2

Between

¶3

Harish Jayantilal Pandya … Appellant/s

¶4

V/s.

¶5

Presiding Officer I/c, Debts Recovery Tribunal– I, Mumbai. …Respondent/s Mr P. R. Diwan along with Mr Mittal M., i/b M/s. Kookada & Associates, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

This is an appeal filed by Shri Harish Jayantilal Pandya, a practising Advocate who was appearing for the Applicants in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 69 of 2019 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1, Mumbai (D.R.T.) aggrieved by the adverse observation made by the Ld. Presiding Officer against him in the Interlocutory Applications (I.As.) Nos. 383/2019 & 605/2019 filed in the aforesaid S.A. for the Applicants therein. The I.As. were dismissed with a cost of ₹25,000/- to be paid by Applicants to Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 and a cost of ₹5000/- was also imposed on the Appellant herein for being the Applicants’ counsel, to be contributed to the National Defence Fund. The Appellants are also directed to give an undertaking as stated in paragraph 77 of the impugned order which reads thus:

¶7

“77. The waste of judicial time and resources of this Tribunal by Mr Pandya is viewed by seriously. An advocate has the duty to present the case of his

¶8

¶9

client. He has to act as an Officer of the Court. He cannot become mouthpiece of his client. He has to discharge his functions fairly, objectively and within the framework of rule book. Mr. Pandya cannot be allowed to waste the time of judiciary. Therefore, a written undertaking is required to be taken from Mr Pandya not to indulge in any misadventurism which ultimately results in wastage of judicial time and resources. If Mr Pandya fails to give an undertaking, the consequences shall follow.”

¶10

Subsequent orders were also made on 24.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 in the said I.As. and also the application filed by the Appellant for expunging the remarks made against him in the order dated 08.08.2019 was also disallowed.

¶11

The original Applicant has not come on appeal. Hence, the scope of the present appeal is limited to the remarks made against the Appellant and the cost imposed upon him.

¶12

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. Since the dismissal of the application was on merits and the merits have not been challenged, this Tribunal is not inclined to go into the merits of the decision taken by the Ld. Presiding Officer with regard to the subject of dispute in the S.A. The scope of this appeal is therefore, limited to the propriety of the observations made against the Appellant.

¶13

The Ld. Presiding Officer has observed that a counsel is not expected to be the mouthpiece of his client. I am in disagreement with that observation. A lawyer is always expected to be the mouthpiece of his client before the Court. But then, he is also expected to be fair in his submissions. A Court/ Tribunal cannot be a disciplinary authority regarding the conduct of an advocate. In

¶14

¶15

case the conduct of an advocate amounts to contempt of Court, action has to be taken under the provisions of Sections 10 & 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 10 provides power to the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate Courts. In the instant case, the Ld. Presiding Officer has not observed that there is a contempt of Court committed by the Appellant and the procedures required for contempt proceedings are also not initiated.

¶16

If there is any complaint regarding professional misconduct by an advocate, a complaint has to be made under the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act. On receipt of such complaint or otherwise, if the State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. An advocate can be punished only by a disciplinary committee. A Court or Tribunal has no authority to punish or penalise an advocate for his alleged misconduct.

¶17

In the instant case, the Ld. Presiding Officer was not justified imposing a cost on the Appellant with the intention to penalise him for not conducting the S.A. in accordance with professional ethics, or for even misleading him. The Tribunal or Court should be moderate in its observation against an advocate. Harsh words are not to be used. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal imposing a cost on the Appellant. I am not, however, inclined to expunge the other remarks made against the counsel since the Ld. P.O. has not used any intemperate language in his order.

¶18

¶19

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part and the cost imposed on the Appellant by the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 is set aside.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

mks-01

¶22

Harish Jayantila Pandya v. Preding Officer Ic Drt 1 Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Jayantila Pandya v. Preding Officer Ic Drt 1 Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Seema Ayaz Maniyar versus Axis Bank

Central Bank of India versus Smt Purnima Sharad Halkarni

Central Bank of India versus Purnima Sharad Halkarni

Hasmukhbhai C Limbasia in the Matter Between M/S. Dharmanandan Textiles & Ors. versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Vinod Madhukar Bombale versus Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Kamalkishore Onkarmal Rungta versus Union Bank of India