SHRI DIGANT v. M/S. P.D.T. TRADING CO.
Discusses principles related to advocate withdrawal, service of notice, and High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1352
Decision Date: 18-11-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; General Clauses Act, 1897; Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India, 1949; Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960; Civil Manual
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: The judgment discusses Section 16(1)(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in the context of a civil suit for possession. The suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondents under these sections. The judgment does not provide a detailed interpretation of these sections but mentions their application in the context of the suit. The core issue revolves around whether the defendants were duly informed about their lawyer's intention to withdraw from the case, not the specific interpretation of these sections. The High Court's order setting aside the District Judge's order was based on the lack of opportunity given to the defendants to lead evidence, not on the interpretation of Section 16(1)(g) and (n).
- General Clauses Act, 1897: The judgment refers to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, stating that a notice sent by RPAD (Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due) carries a general presumption of due service to the addressee. The court notes that the appellants' failure to acknowledge or deny receipt of the notice sent by RPAD distinguishes the present case from other case laws cited. The court emphasizes that the notice sent by RPAD demonstrates a "positive act" on the part of the advocate.
- Advocates Act, 1961: The judgment discusses Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act in conjunction with Rule 8(4) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The High Court had observed a violation of these provisions, stating that there was no service of notice seven days in advance regarding the advocate's intention to withdraw, as required by these rules framed under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the appellate court's order. The judgment also mentions that the pursis filed by the advocate was not a withdrawal of vakalatnama as contemplated under the Advocates Act.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly focusing on the scope of the High Court's power under these articles. It cites Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. to emphasize that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 but can be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly to keep subordinate courts within their authority, not to correct mere errors. The court notes that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in interfering with a well-reasoned order of the appellate court.
- Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960: The judgment refers to Rule 8(4) of Chapter XXXII of Schedule VII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which outlines the procedure for an advocate to withdraw their appearance. The High Court considered this rule and observed that a clear seven days' advance notice to the client is required before a counsel withdraws their vakalatnama. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the appellate court's order, even though the procedure under Rule 8(4) was not strictly followed.
- Civil Manual: The judgment refers to Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual, which outlines the procedure for an advocate to withdraw their appearance. The High Court extracted this clause and observed a violation of its requirements, stating that there was no service of notice seven days in advance. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the appellate court's order. The judgment also mentions that the pursis filed by the advocate was not a withdrawal of vakalatnama as contemplated under the Civil Manual.
🔒 For Members Only