VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARYversusSUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR

                   [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 518
                                                                      _.
A                  VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY
                                 v.
                 SUHAS JAYANT NATAWADKAR
                        I.A. No.2 of 2009
                                 in
B           Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 1848112009
                        OCTOBER 30, 2009
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.]
                                                                      ..

c       Supreme Court Rules, 1966:

       Or. 4, ff. 1,5 and 6 - Advocates-on-record - Role and
  responsibility of;· in the matters filed under their signatures -
  HELD: Many special leave petitions are being filed with
D Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders, without
  having, or taking any responsibility for the case - As a result
  of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, Advocates-
                                                                           ,.
  on-record do not appear when matters are listed either before
  the Registrar or before the Chamber Judge or the Court, nor
  do they take any interest or responsibility for processing or
E
  conducting the case - They also play no role in preparation
  of the special leave petitions, nor ensure that requirements
  of Rules are fulfilled and defects are cured - In order to


F
  enforce discipline in the working of Advocates-on-record and
  to avoid the misuse of the system, and to ensure that Court
  has benefit of effective assistance of Advocates-on-record, a
                                                                       ,
                                                                           -
  solution has to be found - Notice directed to issue Advocates-
  on-record Association and Supreme Court Bar Association
  to assist the Court to find appropriate solutions and provide
  necessary checks and balances.
G
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                                   x
                           I.A No. 2 of 2009.
                                   IN
       SLP (Civil) No. 18481 of 2009.
H                                518
         VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY v. SUHAS JAYANT                     519
                       NATAWADKAR
          From the Judgment & Order dated 13.1.2009 of the High             A
     Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in
     Contempts Petition No. 212 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 4842
     of 2005.

          Vikas Mahajan, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra for the Petitioner.
                                                                            B
          The following Order of the Court was delivered
J

          1. I.A. No. 2 of 2009 in an application for restoration of the
     special leave, petition dismissed for non-prosecution on
     20.07.2009. This application discloses a disturbing trend in           c
     regard to the functioning of Advocates-on-record.

           2. The special leave petition is stated to have been
     drafted by Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate and filed by Mr. D.B.
     Vohra, Advocate-on-Record. The application for restoration is
•"   filed by Mr. D.B. Vohra, alleging that the case was listed for
                                                                            D
     hearing on 20.07.2009 that he (Mr. D.B. Vohra, Advocate-on-
     Record for the petitioner) was aware of the listing of the petition,
     that he informed the clerk of Mr. Vikas Mahajan about the listing
     that Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Advocate by mistake did not enter this
     case in his diary and therefore, Mr. Vikas Mahajan did not             E
     appear. There is no affidavit of Mr. Vikas Mahajan in support
     of the application.
'
~
           3. What is puzzling is the role or rather the absence of the
     role of the Advocate-on-Record in this matter. Para 4 of the           F
     application shows that the Advocate-on-Record had nothing to
     do with the special leave petition except to lend his name for
     filing the petition. He did not take instructions from the clienV
     petitioner. He did not prepare the special leave petition. He did
     not instruct any counsel. He was not required to or expected to        G
3.   attend the hearing of the case.

           4. The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provide that though
     any advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, is
     entitled to appear and plead before the Court, no advocate other
     than the Advocate-on-Record shall be entitled to file an               H
    520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

                                                                       4
A appearance or act for a party in the Court [vide Rule 1, Rule
  6(b) and Order IV]. Rule 5 provides that no advocate shall be
  qualified to be registered as advocate-on-record unless he has
  undergone training for one year with an Advocate-on-Record
  approved by the court and thereafter has passed the tests held
B by the court. Rule 6(a) provides that an Advocate-on-Record
  shall, on his filing memorandum of appearance on behalf of a
  party, accompanied by Vakalatnama duly executed by the party,
  be entitled to act as well as to plead for the party in the matter
  and to conduct and prosecute before the court all proceedings
                                                                       '
c that may be taken in respect of the said matter or any
  application connected with the same or any decree or order
  passed therein including proceedings in taxation and
  applications for review. Sub-clause (c) of Rule 6 requires all
  Advocates-on-Record to keep such books of account as may
  be necessary to show in connection with his practice as an
D
  advocate-on-record, moneys received from or on account of            'I
  and the money paid to or on account of each of his client.

         5. Unfortunately, many special leave petitions are being
  filed with Advocates-on-Record being mere name-lenders,
E without having, or taking, any responsibility for the case. As a
  result of prevalence of such a practice, in such cases, the
  Advocates-on-record do not appear when the matters are listed
  either before the Registrars or before the Chamber Judge or
  the Court nor do they take any interest or responsibility for             ,
F processing or conducting the case. They also play no role in
  preparation of the special leave petitions, nor ensure that the
  requirements of the Rules are fulfilled and defects are cured. If
  the role of an advocate-on-record is merely to lend his name
  for filing cases without being responsible for the conduct of the
G case, the very purpose of having the system of Advocates-on
  Record would get defeated.
                                                                           \.

        6. The question that arises for consideration is whether an
    Advocate-on-Record can file appearances as mere name-
    lender for facilitating filing of petitions by others, without
H
    VIJAY DHANJI CHAUDHARY v. SUHAS JAYANT                 521
                  NATAWADKAR

performing any of the functions associated with an Advocate-      A
on-Record.

     7. In order to enforce discipline in the working of
advocates-on-record and to avoid the misuse of the system,
and to ensure that the court has the benefit of effective         B
assistance of the Advocates-on-record, a solution has to be
found.

     8. We, therefore, direct issue of notice to the Advocates-
on-record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association
to assist us to find appropriate solutions and provides           C
necessary checks and balances. The Registry is directed to
furnish copies of this order to the said Associations.

       9. List the matter on 30.11.2009.
                                                                  D
R.P.                                        Matter Adjourned.