0704 07 Professional Ethics Case : Himalayan Co-Operative Group Housing Society Vs Balwan Singh

CASE NAME: HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY 

VS BALWAN SINGH  29 APRIL 2015

PETITIONER: HIMALAYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY                  

RESPONDENT: BALWAN SINGH  

BENCH: CHEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA

CITATION:  2015 7 SCC 373/AIR 2015 SC 2867

LAWS INVOLVED : Advocates Act, 1961 Section 33 Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151, Order III Rule 1,  Constitution of India 1950 Art. 226, 227                         

FACTS: 

    Himalayan cooperative group housing society of 150 members. Registered under Delhi cooperative society Act 1972. The respondent, the residing member had not given the residential quarters of the society (appellant) despite of the notices sent to him repeatedly. Appellant went to the registrar of co-operative society rule 36 of Delhi cooperative society rules 1973. The registrar verified the documents and gave last opportunity to clear the dues within 4 weeks after that the respondent ceased to be the members of the society.

The respondent appealed before the presiding officer Delhi cooperative tribunal, did not work. Respondent filed writ petition in high court, High Court allowed them for the construction. The appellant counsel appealed in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:  

        Whether the council appearing for an appellant could make concessions for or on behalf of the appellant and without any express instructions authorisation in that regard?  Weather such a concession would bind the appellant.

         Since the subject matter of the concession made by the council was not the issue before the high court whether the same would bend the appellant?

JUDGEMENT:  

        Under the provisions of the Act the Registrar and the Revisional Authority in their order have considered the validity of the expulsion of the respondents from the membership of the appellant-Society for having defaulted in paying the principal amount to the appellant-Society. The Writ Court, in the impugned judgment and order, has also reached the conclusion that since the respondents had defaulted in paying the principal amount to the appellant-Society, the appellant-Society was justified in expelling them from the membership of the appellant-Society and hence, confirmed the orders passed by the authorities.

        Client is not bound by a statement or admission which he or his lawyer was not authorised to make. Lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client’s instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client.

      “An advocate, in the discharge of his duty knows but one person in the world and that person is his client.”

      Hence the appellant lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct under the Bar Council of India Rules,1975, in part vi, chapter ll provide for the 'Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes' to be observed by all the Advocates under the Advocate's Act,1972.

Download