Limits of Counsel's Authority to Compromise Suits and Overcoming Decades of Delay under CPC

🔒   For Members Only

Not a member? Join us

Case: KRISHNA KUMAR OJHA v. JITENDRA CHAUDHARY
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 01-07-2026
Law: Code of Civil Procedure, Limitation Act.

Full Judgment → MCQ Test →

Highlights of the Judgment:

• Interpretation of the mandatory requirement of written and signed agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• Limits on a counsel's implied authority to enter into a compromise or surrender substantive rights without express client authorization.
• The maintainability of a recall application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge a fraudulent consent decree.
• The application of the law of limitation versus the court's inherent power to prevent the perpetuation of an illegal compromise.
• Analysis of judicial precedents governing the duties of advocates when making concessions that affect a client's property rights.