Two advocates trade charges against each other before Tribunal – matter referred to Bar Council of Delhi
Here is an interesting story.
In an order passed on 26.2.2007, the CESTAT ordered pre deposit and noted in the order that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, had stated that, a sum of Rs. 30 lacs (in addition to already deposited Rs. 20 lacs) could be deposited, if waiver of rest of the duty and penalty was ordered against them. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal directed that the applicant will deposit Rs. 30 lacs over and above Rs. 20 lacs within six weeks.
Now an application is filed for rectifying the order dated 26.02.2007 on the ground that, the learned counsel, who had appeared in the matter, was not authorized to give an undertaking to make the deposit of Rs. 30 lacs. That he had in utter disregard of the instructions given to him and without any proper authorization given an undertaking to deposit Rs. 30 lacs. This ROM was filed by another advocate.
Since serious allegations were made, against the first counsel, a notice was issued to him to meet the allegations. He appeared before the Tribunal, filed an affidavit and stated that
1.he had made the statement for depositing Rs. 30 lacs over and above Rs. 20 lacs on proper instructions.
2. the statement to agree to deposit Rs. 30 lacs as against earlier order of deposit of Rs. 80 lacs had been made under the instructions of his client only for which discussions had already been held with him in his office before the hearing.
3. the present application was moved without his consent and without his knowledge through some other Advocate who had not taken his 'No Objection'.
4. It is further stated in the affidavit that, stringent and deterrent measures were required to be taken against the counsel who moved this application without taking his consent and also against the appellant for moving such application stating totally wrong facts.
5. Mr. ManojRatnakar Jain, Director of the Appellant, had told him that he had not drafted the present application and that he had not filed the same under his instructions. (He also filed an affidavit of Mr. ManojRatnakar Jain)
The Tribunal rejected the ROM application without prejudice to any action that may be initiated against the applicant for making a wrong statement.
And
Forwarded a copy of the order to the President of the Bar Council of Delhi for necessary action as may deem fit, in view of the serious allegations made by the learned counsel against the other counsel.
Why are the advocates always referred to as learned?
You can get the full text of the case in