The Supreme Court recently held that given the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and a client, an advocate cannot provide an undertaking without explicit authorization from the client.
“a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter. It is also clear that the lawyer is to respect the decision-making right of the client. It flows from this that any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client.”, the court observed.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol heard the case where the Appellant, who were guilty of disobeying the court's injunction order, gave an undertaking in 2007 before the trial court through his lawyer stating that they would not alienate the suit property. The trial court, recording the appellant's undertaking, had extended the order on several occasions.
However, disobeying the undertaking submitted before the Court, the Appellant had alienated the suit property to some other person.
When the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC was filed by the respondent in 2011 complaining about the Appellant's disobedience of the Court's order passed under Rules 1 & 2, the Appellant stated that they haven't authorized their lawyer to filed an undertaking which stated they would not alienate the suit's property.
Being aggrieved by the High Court's decision holding them guilty of contempt prompted the Appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
