Holding

An advocate’s participation in a strike that leads to non‑appearance cannot be made the client’s burden; the ex‑parte decree may be set aside on terms and the court may order the client to recover costs from the striking advocate.

Summary

Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd., a tenant, faced an eviction suit. On the scheduled trial date, the firm's advocates did not appear because of a lawyers' strike, leading the trial court to pass an ex‑parte decree against the appellant. The appellant's applications to set aside the decree and the subsequent appeal were dismissed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex‑parte order on terms, ordered the appellant to pay Rs 5,000 costs to the respondent, and permitted the appellant to recover half of that amount from the advocate firm or any partner. The Court held that an advocate’s participation in a strike that causes non‑appearance cannot be made the client’s burden; courts are not obliged to adjourn due to strikes, and advocates may be liable for the pecuniary loss suffered by their clients. The judgment emphasized professional ethics, the contractual nature of the advocate‑client relationship, and the power of courts to order cost recovery from striking advocates.

Issues considered

Whether a litigant can be penalised for the non‑appearance of his advocate due to a strike.
Whether an ex‑parte decree passed because of an advocate’s strike can be set aside on terms.
Whether the court can order costs to be recovered from the advocate who participated in the strike.
Whether an advocate is liable for the pecuniary loss suffered by the client due to strike‑induced non‑appearance.
Whether courts are obligated to adjourn proceedings when advocates are on strike.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 9 Rule 7

Subjects

lawyers strikeadvocate liabilityex‑parte decreecost recoveryprofessional ethicsAdvocates ActCPC Order 9 Rule 7contempt of courtclient‑advocate relationshipjudicial process

Judgment

A RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD.
v.
SUBHASH KAPOOR AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 14, 2000

B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Advocates:

lawyers Strike and Professional ethics.
c
Suit decreed ex-pa rte against defendant as advocate for the defendant
failed to appear due to lawyers strike-Held, in future the advocate would
also be answerable for the consequences suffered by the party if the non-
appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call-It is unjust and
D inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self imposed dereliction
of his advocate-Such litigant, who suffers entirely on account of hi$
advocate's non-appearance in Court has also the remedy to sue the advocate
for damages-Same Court has power to realise the cost to permit the litigant
party to realise the cost from the advocate concerned without driving such
party to initiate another legal action against the advocate-Further, the
E services rendered by the advocates to their clients are regulated by a contract
between the two besides statutory limitations, restrictions and guidelines
incorporated in the Advocates Act, the Rules made thereunder and the Rules
of procedure.

Lawyers strike-Held, when an advocate opts to strike work or boycott
F the Court such advocate must as well be prepared to bear the pecuniary loss
· suffered by the litigant client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with
all confidence that his cause would be safe in the hands of that advc~. ·
-
Abstaining from the Court by advocates-By and large, does not only
affect the persons belonging to the legal profession but also hampers the
G process ofjustice sometimes urgently needed by the consumers ofjustice, t'he
litigants.

Advocate-client relationship-Nature of-Held, legal profession is
essentially a service-oriented profession-The relationship between the lawyer
H and his client is one of trust and confidence-With the strike by the lawyers,
550
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR 551
the process of court intended to secure justice is obstructed which is A
unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act-law is no trade
and briefs of the litigants not merchandise.

Contempt

Cpntempt of Supreme Court-Committed by other Courts in India- B
Due to inaction under lawyers strike-Held, Courts to rise from slumber and
perform their duty without fear or favour-Inaction will contribute to the
erosion of ethics and values in the legal profession-The defaulting Court
may also be contributory to the contempt of the Supreme Court.

Constitution of India
c
Welfare State-Goal of-Held, lawyers are a force for the preservance
and strengthening of constitutional government, as they are guardians of the
modern legal system-The concept of welfare state would remain in oblivion
unless social justice is dispensed with-Dispensation of social justice and D
achieving the goals set forth in the Constitution are not possible without the
active, concerted and dynamic efforts made by the person concerned with the
justice dispensation system-The role of the members of the Bar has. great
importance i~ the post-independent era in the country.

A suit was filed against the appellant (whose place of business was in E
Mumbai) by the respondent for eviction and on the day fixed for trial, there
was lawyers strike in the trial court when the advocate for the appellant failed
to appear and an ex-parte evidence was recorded. An application under Order
9 Rule 7 CPC was filed by the appellant but the said application was dismissed
and suit was decreed. Thereafter, an application for setting aside ex-parte p
decree was filed and the same was also dismissed. Appeal filed before the High
Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Per Thomas, J.:
G
1.1. When the advocate who is engaged by a party is on strike there is
no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on
that account. An advocate has no right to stall the court proceedings on the
ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or boycott
any particular court. 1556-G, HI H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v, Taxation Bar Association, (19951
5 SCC 716; K John Koshy & Ors. v. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw, (19981 8
SCC 624; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation, (1999) 1 SCC 37 and
Kollumottil Razak v. State of Kera/a, (lOOO.I 4 SCC 465, relied on.

1.2. The ex-parte order against the appellant due to the non-appearance
B of the firm of advocates is set aside on payment of a sum of Rs. 5000 as costs.
However, appellant is permitted to realise half of the amount of Rs. 5000 from
the firm of Advocates or from any one of its partners. Legal professionals
are put to !!Otice that in future the advocate would also be answerable for the
consequences suffered by the party if the non~appearance was solely on the
C ground ofa strike call. It is unjust and inequitable to cause the party alone to
suffer for the, self imposed dereliction of his advocate. It may further be added
that the litigant, who suffers entirely on acco~nt of his advocate's non-
appearance in court, he has also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages.
When the court mulcts the party with cost for failure of his advocate to appear,
it is made clear that the same court has power to permit the party to realise
D the cost from the advocate concerned. However, such direction can be passed
only after affording an opportunity to the advocate. If he has any justifiable
cause the court can certainly absolve him from such a liability. ·But the
advocate can not get absolved merely on the ground that he did not attend the
court as he or his association was on strike. If any advocate claims that his
E right to strike must be without any loss to him but the loss must only be for
his innocent client such a claim is repugnant to any principle of fair-play 'and
cannons of ethics. So when an advocate opts to strike work or boycott the
court he must as well be prepared to bear at least the pecuniary loss suffered
by the litigant client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with all
confidence that his cause would be safe in the hands of that advocate.
F (559-G-H; 560-A-D)

1.3. In all cases where court is satisfied that the ex-parte order passed
due to the absence of the advocate pursuant to any strike call could be set
aside on terms, the court can as well permit the party to realise the costs
G from the advocate concerned without driving such party to initiate another
legal action against the advocate. (560-EJ

1.4. It is open to the court as an alternative course to permit the party
while setting aside the ex-parte order or decree earlier passed in his favour
to realise the cost fixed by the court for that purpose, from the counsel of the
H other party whose absence caused the passing of such ex-parte order, if the
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR 553
court is satisfied that such absence was due to the counsel boycotting the A
court or participating in strike. 1560-FI

Per Sethi, J (Concurring)

2. I. Generally strikes are antithesis of the progress, prosperity and
development. The services rendered by the advocates of their clients are B
regulated by a contract between the two besid~s statutory limitations,
restrictions and guidelines incorporated in the Advocates Act, the Rules m-ade
thereunder and the Rules of procedure. Abstaining from the courts by the
advocates, by and large, does not only affect the persons belonging to the legal
profession but also hampers the process of justice sometimes urgently needed
by the consumers of justice, the litigants. Legal profession is essentially a C
service-oriented profession. The relationship between the lawyer and his client
is one of trust and confidence. 1561-F-GI

2.2. With the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to
secure justice is obstructed which is unwarranted under the provisions of D
the Advocates Act. Law is no trade and briefs of the litigants are not
"' merchandise. (561-H; 562-AI

2.3. No leniency can be shown to the defaulting party with regard to the
strike by the Advocates and if the circumstances warrant to put such party
back in the position as it existed before the strike. In that event, the adversary E
is entitled to be paid exemplary costs. The litigant sufferl!ig costs has a right
to be compensated by his defaulting counsel for the costs paid. In appropriate
cases the court itself can pass effective orders, for dispensation of justice
with the object of inspiring confidence of the common man in the effectiveness
of the judicial system. In the instant case ~espondent has to be held entitled F
to the payment of costs, consequent upon the setting aside of the ex-parte order
passed in his favour. f567-D-EI

The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar & Ors, 119761 2
SCC 291; Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
Bombay and Ors., 119841 2 SCC 556; Tahil Ram fssardas Sadarangani & G
Ors. v. Ramchand lssardas Sadarangani & Anr., 119931 Supp 3 SCC 256;
Common Cause, A Regd Society v. Union of India & Ors., 11994) 5 SCC 557;
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy. State of Bihar, f1980) 1 SCC 81; In Re:
Sanjiv Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New
Delhi, etc. 1199513 SCC 619; Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State ofUP., (19531
SCR 1169; UP. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

··A Agra & Ors. 11995) 5 SCC 716; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation
Pvt. ltd. I 19991 1 SCC 37 and Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhmy v. State (Delhi
Administration), (19841 1 SCC 722, relied on.

Re: Tarini Mohan Barari, AIR Cal. 212 ( FB) and Re: Pleader, AIR
B (1924) Rang. 320 (DB), referred to.
Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial lawyers Association,
493 US 411, referred to.

Warvella's legal Ethics, pg. 182, referred to.
c 3. It is a matter of regret that the courts in the ~ountry have been
contributory to the continuance of the strikes on account of their action of
sympathising with the Bar and failing to discharge their legal obligations
obviously under the threat of public fl'enzy and harassment by the striking
advocates. Some courts might have conducted the cases even during the strike
D or boycott period or adjourned due to helplessness for not being in a position
to decide the lis in the absence of the counsel but majority of the courts in
the country have been impliedly sympathisers by not rising to the occasion
by taking positive stand for the preservation of the high traditions of law and ,.
for continued restoration of the confidence of the common man in the
E institution of judiciary. It is not too late even now for the courts in the country
to rise from the slumber and perform their duties without fear or favour.
Inaction will surely contribute to the erosion of ethics and values in the legal
profession. The defaulting courts may also be contributory to the contempt of
this Court. 1567-F-H; 568-A-BI

F 4.1. Persons belonging to the legal professions are concededly the elite
of the society. They have always been in the vanguard of progress and progress
of not only law but the polity as a whole. Citizenry looks at them with hope
and expectations for traversing on the new paths and virgin fields to be
marched on by the society. The profession by and large has undoubtedly
performed its duties and obligations and has never hesitated to shoulder its
G responsibilities in larger interests of the mankind. The lawyers, who has been
acknowledged being sober, task oriented, professionally responsible stratum
of the population, are further obliged to utilise their skills for socio-political
modernization of the country. The lawyers are a force for the preservance
'
and strengthening of constitutional government, as they are guardians of the
H modern legal system. (560-H; 561-A-BI
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SU~HASl;I KAPOOR [THOMAS, J.] 555
:; 4.2. After independence the concept of social justice has become a part . A
of our legal system, The concept of welfare state would remain in oblivion
unless social 'justice is dispensed with. Dispen~ation of social justice and
achieving the goals set forth in the Constitution are not po~sible without the
active, concerted and dynamic efforts made by the person concernetl with the
justice dispensation system. The prevailing ailing socio-economic-political.
system in the country needs treatment, which can immediately be provided by B.
judicial incision. Such a.surgery is impossible to be performed unless the
Bench and the Bar make concerted effort. The role of the members of the
Bar has thus assumed great importance in the post-independent era in the
country.1561-C-El
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6385 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.09.99 of the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in FAO 199/99.

V.K. Makhija, M.N. Krishnamani, Dr. J.P. Verghese, S.P. Shanna, Abhay D
· Makhija, Navin Chawla and Vipin Nair for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
E
Another ticklish issue concerning legal profession has winched to the
fore which, perforce, has to be decided by us in this case. Should a litigant
suffer penalty for his advocate boycotting the court pursuant to a strike call
made by the association of which the advocate was a member? The question
arose in this case after the suit was decreed ex-parte by the trial court in F
consequence of the non-appearance of the counsel on a day fixed for hearing,
on the preJ!lise of the strike call.

Appellant-company was in occupation of a building as tenant at
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. A suit was filed against the appellant for G
eviction from the building and other consequential reliefs which was resisted
by the appellant by raising various contentions. Issues in the suit were
framed by the court and the case was posted to 26.8.1998 for trial. None of
the advocates belonging to the firm of lawyers which was engaged by the
appellant did not appear in the court on the day because the advocates were
on a strike called by the advocates association concerned. As nobody for the H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A appellant was present the court s.et the defendant ex-parte and evidence of
the plaintiff was recorded. Appellant whose place of business was in Mumbai,
on coming to know of the developments, applied under Order 9 Rule 7 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short the " Code"). But the application was
dismissed and eventually the suit was decreed on 13.11.1998. Thereafter,
appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said
B application was dismissed by the trial court, for which the following reasoning,
inter a/ia, has been stated:

"It is settled law that strike or boycott by the advocates is no ground
for adjournment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh

c v. Jacks Aviation, ( 1998) RLR-SC-644 has held that all courts have to
do judicial business during court hours. It is the solemn duty of every
· lawyer to attend the court. The defendant and the counsel very well
know that the case was fixed on 26.8.98 for plaintiffs evidence. Counsel
for the defendant (at least 8 counsel had been engaged by the

D
defendant) and the defendant deliberately did not appear on 26.8.98.
There is no bona fide or reasonable ground put forward by the
...
defendant or their counsel for non-appearance. They were knowing
the consequences of non-appearance. l therefore, find no ground in
allowing the application under order IX Rule 16 CPC. The application
is hereby dismissed with costs."

E Appellant thereafter approached the High Court with an appeal against
the aforesaid order. The High Court concurred with the reasoning of the trial
court and dismissed the appeal. Learned single judge while dismissing the
appeal stated thus:

"In my considered opinion, the proposition of law as laid down in the
F decision ofthe Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh's case [1999]
I SCC 3 7 squarely applied to the facts of the present case. There was
negligence and total lack of bona fide on the part of the defendants
and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief in the present appeal.
The appeal stands dismissed as without any merit leaving the parties
G to bear their own costs."

We have no doubt that the legal position adumbrated by the Additional
District Judge as well as the High Court/cannot be taken exception to. When
the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike there is no obligation
on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account.
H Time and again this court has said that an advocate has no right to stall the
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR [THOMAS, J.] 557
court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to A
boy~ott the courts or even boycott any particular court. Vide U.P. Sales Tax
Service Association V. Taxation Bar Association, Agra & Ors., [1995] 5 sec
716; K. John Koshy & Ors. v. Dr. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw, [1998] 8 SCC
624; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation, [1999] 1 SCC 37 and
Koluttumottil Razak v. State of Kera/a, [2000] 4 SCC 465.
B
Now the party says that his absence may be viewed from a broader
angle particularly on account of the following background. Appellant company
is situated at Mumbai and the court in which the suit was filed is situated
in Delhi. On 24.8. 1998 the counsel for the appellant transmitted a message to
the appellant that none of the advocates would attend the court due to the C
strike call on 26.8.1998. Appellant says that it was not possible to make
arrangements for appearing in court on the succeeding day at such a short
note and from such a long distance. He would have thought that the courts
could not function when the advocates were on strike though he later realised
that it was a wrong assumption. He made out a case for setting aside the ex-
parte order, at least on some terms because his non-appearance was D
attributable entirely to the firm of advocates whom he engaged (M/s. B.C. Das
Gupta & Co.)

In view of the aforesaid stand of the appellant we passed the following
order on 8.5.2000.
E
"We tentatively propose to set aside the ex-parte judgment on some
terms, like payment of costs to the other side, because petitioner's
counsel was absent in the trial court when the case was called as he
was participating in the lawyer's strike. But it is difficult for us to mulct
the petitioner with the cost portion as he is innocent. Hence we issue F
notice to Mis. Das Gupta & Co. lawyers of Delhi, to show cause why
the petitioner shall not be permitted to realise the said cost amount
from the said advocates".

A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said firm of advocates.
It is admitted in the affidavit that the firm was engaged by the appellant in G
the said suit. The deponent tried to explain their non-appearance on two
factual premises. First is that when the firm came to know that Delhi Bar
Association resolved to boycott the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi,.
appellant was informed of it and expressed the inability of the. advocates to
appear before the said court on 26.8.1998. Second is that in spite of such
communication a member of the lawyers' firm made an attempt to reach the H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A court concerned, but he did not succeed as he was prevented by the other
striking lawyers. The following is the statement made by the firm of advocates
regarding their absence in the court:

"That on 26.8.1998, a member of our firm visited the court of the
aforesaid learned ADJ. However the office bearers and members of
B Delhi Bar Association did not allow any counsel to appear before the
court of aforesaid learned ADJ. Therefore we could not appear in the
aforesaid matter on 26.8.1998 and the aforesaid learned ADJ was
pleased to pass the following order".

About the second facet of the explanation offered by the lawyers' firm
C there is no direct information from the particular person who is said to have
tried to enter the court or as to who were the persons who prevented him from
entering the court. Even the name of the advocate member of the firm who
tried to enter the court hall has not been mentioned. Be that as it may, if the
firm of advocates thinks that they really wanted to attend the court but were
"<I'
D physically prevented by somebody else from doing so it is open to the
counsel concerned to resort to such steps as against those persons.

But the fact remains that appellant was set ex-parte due to the absence
of the appellant and his counsel in the court when the case was taken up for
hearing. In the special circumstances of this case we are inclined to set aside
E the ex-parte order dated 26.8.1998, on some terms.

Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000 as costs to the respondent/
plaintiff within one month from today and on such payment (or deposit with
the trial court) the ex-parte order dated 26.8.1998 would stand set aside.

Now comes the question of syphoning the said burden on to the
F advocate. Should the advocate be mulcted with that amount as he is primarily
instrumental for setting his client ex-parte. Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned
senior counsel, after disowning. the liability of the counsel, adopted the
alternative plea on that score like this: Till 10.9.1998, when the apex Court
pronounced in unmistakable terms while deciding Mahabir Prasad Singh's
G case (supra) that boycott of the court by the advocate is unquestionably
illegal, the legal fraternity took it for granted that the courts would not
proceed with the cases during strike periods. The following can be extracted
from the written submission made by the senior counsel:

"The courts were sympathesing with the Bar and would agree for not
H dismissil\g cases for default and to take up the matter of disposal
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR [THOMAS, J.] 559
only if both the parties in person agree for an adjudication. This A
practice of the court unofficially co-operating with the strike and
agreeing or adjourning the cases lulled the lawyers into a bona fide
belief that even ifhe did not appe~r, the court would not do any harm
to the case. It was in this belief and in this _legitimate expectation
which emanated on the basis of the convention and the practice for
over 3 to 4 decades, the lawyers either participated in the strike and B
several of them were really physically prevented from entering the
courts. Most of the lawyers participated passively rather than actively
in strikes."

Shri Krishnamani, however, made the present position as unambiguously C
clear in the following words.

"Today, if a lawyer participates, in a Bar Association's boycott of a
particular court that is ex-facie bad in view of the clear declaration of
law by this Hon'ble Court. Now, even if there is a boycott call, a
lawyer can boldly ignore the same in view of the ruling of this Hon'ble D
Court in [1999] I SCC 37."

Though we appreciate the stand of the senior counsel that an advocate
would hereinafter venture to ignore the boycott call, I am unable to agree
with the learned senior counsel that the courts had earlier sympathized with
the Bar and agreed to adjourn cases during the strikes or boycotts. If any E
court had adjourned cases during such periods it was not due to any sympathy
for the strikes or boycotts, but due to helplessness in certain cases to do
otherwise without the aid of a counsel. Nor do we concede to the contention
that this court declared the legal position only when Mahabir Prasad Singh
(supra) was decided that strikes or boycotts are illegal. We have cited supra F
the earlier decisions rendered by this Court in tune with the same stand.

Therefore, we permit the appellant to realise half of the said amount of
Rs. 5000 from the firm of advocates M/s. B.C. Das Gupta & Co. or from any
one of its partners. Initially we thought that the appellant could be permitted
to realise the whole amount from the said firm of advocates. However, we are G
inclined to save the firm from bearing the costs partially since the Supreme
Court is adopting such a measure for the first time and the counsel would not
have been conscious of such a consequence befalling them. Nonetheless we
put the profession to notice that in future the advocate would also be
answerable for the consequence suffered by the party if the non-appearance
. was solely on the ground of a strike call. It is unjust and inequitable to cause H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the party alone to suffer for the self imposed dereliction of his advocate. We
may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his
advocate's non-appearance in court, he has also the remedy to sue the
advocate for damages but that remedy would remain unaffected by the
course adopted in this case. Even so, in situations like this, when the court
mulcts the party with costs for the failure of his advocate to appear, we make
-
B it clear that the same court has power to permit the party to realise the costs
from the advocate concerned. However{ such direction can be passed only
after affording an: opportunity to the advocate. If he has any justifiable cause
the court can certainly absolve him from such a liability. But the advocate can
not get absoived merely on the ground that he did not attend the court as
C he or his association was on a strike. If any advocate claims that his right
to strike must be without any loss to him but the loss must only be for his
innocent client such a claim is repugnant to any principle of fair-play and
canons of ethics. So when he opts to strike work or boycott the court he must
as well be prepared to bear at least the pecuniary loss suffered by the litigant
client who entrusted his brief to that advocate with all confidence that his -
D cause would be safe in the hands of that advocate.

In all cases where court is satisfied that the ex-parte order (passed due
to the absence to the advocate pursuant to any strike call) could be set aside
on terms the court can as well permit the party to realise the costs from the
E advocate concerned without driving such party to initiate another legal action
against the advocate.

We may also observe .that it is open to the court as an alternative
course to permit the party (while setting aside the ex-parte order or decree
earlier passed in his favour) to realise the cost fixed by the court for that
F purpose, from the counsel of the other party whose absence caused the
passing of such ex-parte order, if the court is satisfied that such absence was
due to that counsel boycotting the court or participating in a strike.

We therefore, dispose of this appeal with the above direction.

G SETHI, J. I agree both with the reasonings and the conclusions arrived
at by Thomas, J. in his lucid judgment. However, the matter being important
having far reaching effects on the institution of the judiciary, and for my
views with respect to the role of the Courts during strikes by Advocates, I
have opted to pen down my own observations in addition.

H Persons belonging to the legal profession are concededly the elite of
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR [SETHI. J.] 561
the society. They have always been in the vanguard of progress and A
development of not only law but the Polity as a whole. Citizenary looks at
them with hope and expectations for traversing on the new paths and virgin
fields to be marched on by the society. The profession by and large, till date
has undoubtedly perfonned its duties and obligations and has never hesitated
to shoulder its responsibilities in larger interests of the mankind. The lawyers, B
who have been acknowledged being sober, task oriented, professionally
responsible stratum of the population, are further obliged to utilise their skills
for socio-political modernization of the country. The lawyers are a force for
the preservance and strengthening of constitutional government as they are
guardians of the modem legal system.

After independence the concept of social justice has become a part of
c
our legal system. This concept gives meaning and significance to the democratic
ways of life and of making the life dynamic. The concept of welfare state
would remain in oblivion unless social justice is dispensed with. Dispensation
of social justice and achieving the goals set forth in the constitution are not
possible without the active, concerted and dynamic efforts made by the D
person concerned with the justice dispensation system. The prevailing ailing
socio- economic-political system in the country needs treatment which can
immediately be provided by judicial incision. Such a surgery is impossible to
be performed unless the Bench and the Bar make concerted effort. The role ·
of the members of the Bar has thus assumed great importance in the post E
independent era in the country.

Generally strikes are antithesis of the progress, pro~perity and
development. Strikes by the professionals including the Advocates cannot be
equated with strikes undertaken by the industrial workers in accordance with
the statutory provisions. The services rendered by the advocates to their F
clients are regulated by a contract between the two besides statutory
limitations, restrictions and guidelines incorporated in the Advocates Act, the
Rules made thereunder and Rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court
and the High Courts. Abstaining from the courts by the Advocates, by and
large, does not only affect the persons belonging to the legal profession but
also hampers the process of justice sometimes urgently needed by the G
consumers of justice, the litigants. Legal profession is essentially a service
oriented profession. The relationship between the lawyer and his client is one
of trust and confidence.

Wi~h the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to secure
justice is obstructed which is unwarranted under the provisions of the H
562 SUPREME COURT REP'0;RTS [2000] SUPP.' 4 S.C.R.

A Advocates Act. Law is no trade and briefs of the litigants not merchandise.
This Court in The Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M V. Dabholkar & Ors.i
[1976]2 SCC 291 placed on record its expectations from the B~ and observed:

"We wish to put beyond cavil the new ~all to the lawyer in the
economic order. In the days ahead, legal aid to the poor and the weak;
B public interest litigation and other rule-of-law responsibilities will
demand a whole new range of responses from the Bar or organised ·
·social groups with lawyer members. Indeed, the hope of democracy
is the dynamism of the new frontiersmen of the law in this developing
area and.· what we have observed against solicitation and alleged
c profit-making vices are distant from such free service to the community
in the rural sector as part of the profession's tryst with the People of
India."

In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
Bombay & Ors., [I 984] 2 SCC 556 it was observed that, "An advocate stands
D in a loco parentis towards the litigants. Therefore, he is expected to follow
norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests. of his client in
relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. Counsel's paramount duty
is to the client. The client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and
honest treatment". It would be against professional etiquette of a lawyer to
deprive his client of his services in the court on account of strike. No
E advocate can take it for granted that he will appear in the court according to
his whim or convenience. It would be against professional ethics for a lawyer
to abstain. from the court when the cause of his client is called for hearing
or further proceedings.

This Court in Tahil Ram /ssardas Sadarangani & Ors. v. Ramchand
F lssardas Sadarangani & Anr., [1993] Supp. 3 sec 256 while deprecating the
decreasing trend of service element and increasing trend of commercialisation
of legal profession, pointed out that it was for the members of the Bar to act
and take positive steps to remove such an impression before it is too late.
By striking work, the lawyers fail in their contractual and professional duty
G to conduct the cases for which they are engaged and paid. In Common
Cause, A Regd. Society v. Union of india & Ors., [ 1994] 5 SCC 557 it was
observed, "Since litigants have a fundamental right to speedy justice as
observed in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, [1980] I SCC
8 I it is essential that cases must proceed when they appear on board and
should not ordinarily be adjourned on accouni of the absence o~ the lawyers
H unless there are cogent reasons to do so. If cases get adjourned time and
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH.KAPOOR [SETHI, J.] 563
again due to cessation of work by lawyers it will in the end result in erosion A
of faith in the justice delivery system which will harm the image and dignity
of the ~ourt as well".'

Noting casual and indifferent ~ttitude of some of the lawyers and
expecting improvement in quality of service this Court in In Re: Sanjiv v.
Datta, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of(eformation & Broadcasting, New Delhi, B
etc., [ 1995] 3 SCC619 held:

"Of late, we haye been coming across several instances which can
only be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the
administration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to
the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands C
to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant·
public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society.
Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly
casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from
their absence.»'hen the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete D
and inaccurate pleadings - many time even illegible and without
personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and
process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take
steps to serve the parties, et al. They' do not realise the seriousness
of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt
of the court but do positive disserv~ce to the litigants and create E
embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable
unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill
for the health of our j11dicial system.

The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble
calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. F
Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely
the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional
has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both
in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other
professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual G
but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised
society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentia of the society
and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a
model for others both in his professional and in his private and public
life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It
must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public
life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in
no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in
the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously
and practised it with dignity, deference and devotion. Ifthe profession
is to s,urvive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will
B be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible. The
casualness and indifference with which some members practise the
profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to
enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they
are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on account
c of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the
profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as
a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage
when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is
wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to
introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the
D courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more."

In Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of UP., [1953) SCR 1169 a
Constitution Bench of this Court held that a resolution passed by the Bar
Association expressing want of confidence in the judicial officers amounted -
E to scandalising the court to undermine its authority which amounted to
contempt of court. In Tarini Mohan Barari, Re: AIR ( 1923) Cal. 212 the Full
Bench of the High Court held that pleaders deliberately abstaining from
attending the court and taking part in a concerted movement to boycott the
court, was a course of conduct held not justified. The pleaders had duties and
obligations to their clients in respect of matters entrusted to them which were
F pending in the courts. They had duty and obligation to cooperate with the
court in the orderly administration of justice. Boycotting the court was held
to be high handed and unjustified. In Pleader, Re: AIR (1924) Rang 3-'.v d
Division Bench of the High Court held that a pleader abstaining from appearing

G
in the court without obtaining his client's consent and leaving him undefended,
amounted to unprofessional conduct. In U. P. Sales Tax Service Association
--
v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra & Ors., [1995) 5 SCC 716 this Court
observed:

"It has been a frequent spectacle in the recent past to witness that
advocates strike work and boycott the courts at the slightest
H provocation overlooking the harm caused to the judicial system in
RAMON SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR [SETHI, J.] 565
general and the litigant public in particular and to themselves in the A
estimate of the general public. An advocate is an officer of the court
and enjoys a special status in the society. The workers in furtherance
of collective bargaining organise strike as per the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act as a last resort to compel the management to
concede their legitimate demands.
B
It is not necessary to go into the question whether the advocates, like
workmen, have any right at all to go on strike or boycott court. In
Federal Trade Commission v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers' Assn.
493 US 411 the attorneys who regularly accepted court appointments
to represent indigent defendants in minor felony and misdemenaour C
cases before the District of Columbia Superior Court sought an increase
in the statutorily fixed fees they were paid for the work they had done.
When their lobbying efforts to get increase in the fees failed, all the
attorneys, as a group, agreed among themselves that they would not
accept any new cases after a certain date, if the District of Columbia
had not passed legislation providing for an increase in their fees. The D
Trial Lawyers' Association to which the attorneys belonged supported
and publicised their agreement. When they are not accepting the
briefs which affected the District's criminal justice system, the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against the Trial Lawyers'
Association complaining that they had entered into a conspiracy to E
fix prices and go in for a boycott which was an unfair method of
competition violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(15 USCS 45). The administrative law judge rejected various defences
of the Association and recommended that the complaint to browbeat
the boycott be dismissed. The Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia reserved the FTC order holding that the attorneys are F
protected by Federal Constitution's First Amendment etc. On certiorari,
majority of USA Supreme Court speaking through Stevens, J. held
that the lawyer.s had no protection of the First Amendment (free
speech) and the action of the group of attorneys to boycott the courts
constituted restraint of trade within the meaning of Section 1 of G
Shreman Act against unfair method of competition. Though the object
was enactment of a favourable legislation, the boycott was the means
by which the attorneys sought to obtain favourable legislation. The
Federal Constitution's First Amendment does not protect them."

In Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd., [1999] 1 SCC 37 to H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A which one of us (Thomas, J.) was a party observed:
"Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be
stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by
litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course
unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted
B by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate
judicial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due
to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge
their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy
on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial
functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy
c slammed on him in open court."

It was further held:

"If any counsel does not want to appear in a particular court, that too
for justifiable reasons, professional decorum and etiquette require him
D to give up his engagement in that court so that the party can engage
another counsel. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same
time abstaining from appearing in that court, that too not on any
particular day on account of some personal inconvenience of the
counsel but as a permanent feature, is unprofessional as also
E unbecoming of the status of an advocate. No court is obliged to
adjourn a cause because of the strike call given by any association
of advocates or a decision to boycott the courts either in general or
any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every court to proceed
with the judicial business during court hours. No court should yield
to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating.
F
A three-Judge Bench of this Court has reminded members of the legal
profession in Lt. Col.. S.J Chaudhary v. ·State (Delhi Admn.), [191S4J
I SCC 722 that it is the duty of every advocate who accepts a brief
to attend the trial and such duty cannot be overstressed. It was
further reminded that 'having accepted the brief, he will be committing
G
a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend'.

"A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract
from the dignity of the court, of which he is himself a sworn
officer and assistant. He should at all times pay differential
H respect to the Judge, and scrupulously observe the decorum
I

RAMON SERVICES PVT.LTD. v. SUBHASH KAPOOR, [SETHJ,J.] 567
of the courtroom." A
(Warvelle's Legal Ethics, at p.182)

Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There is a reciprocal duty for the
court also to be courteous to the members of the Bar and to make
every endeavour for maintaining and protecting the respect which B
members of the Bar are entitled to have from their clients as well as
from t~e litigant public. Both the Bench and the Bar are the two
inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore the aforesaid
mutual respect is the sine qua non for the efficient functioning of the
solemn work carried on in courts of law. But that does not mean that
any advocate or a group of them can boycott the courts or any C
particular court and ask the court to desist from discharging judici<tl
functions. At any rate, no advocate can ask the court to avoid a case
on the ground that he does not want to appear in that court."

In the light of the consistent views of the judiciary regarding the strike
by the advocates, no leniency can be shown to the defaulting party and if D
the circumstances warrant to put such party back in the position as it existed
before the strike. In that event, the adversary is entitled to be paid exemplary
costs. The litigant suffering costs has a right to be compensated by his
defaulting counsel for the costs paid. In appropriate cases the court itself can
pass effective orders, for dispensation of justice with the object of inspiring E
confidence of the common man in the effectiveness of judicial system. In the
instant case respondent has to be held entitled to the payment of costs,
consequent upon the setting aside of the ex-parte order passed in his favour.

Though a matter of regret, yet it is a fact, that the courts in the country
have been contributory to the continuance of the strikes on account of their F
action of sympathising with the Bar and failing to discharge their legal
obligations obviously under the threat of public frenzy and harassment by the
striking advocates. I find myself in agreement with the submission of Sh. M.N.
Krishnamani, Senior Advocate that the courts were sympathising with the Bar
by not agreeing to dismiss the cases for default of appearance of the striking G
advocates. I have my reservations with the observations of Thomas, J. that
the courts had not been sympathising with the Bar during the strikes or
boycotts. Some courts might have conducted the cases even during the strike
or boycott periods or adjourned due to helplessness for not being in a
position to decide the lis in the absence of the counsel but majority of the
courts in the country have been impliedly sympathisers by not rising to the H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A occasion by taking positive st~nd for the preservation of the high traditions
of law and for continued restoration of the confidence of the common man
in the institution of judiciary. It is not too late even now for the courts in the
country to rise from the slumber and perform their duties without fear or
favour particularly after the judgment of this Court in Mahabir Singh 's case
B (supra). Inaction will surely contribute to the erosion of ethics and values in
the legal profession. The defaulting courts may also be contributory to the
contempt of this Court.

R.K.S. Appeal disposed of.