{"id":109654,"date":"2000-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000"},"modified":"2016-05-25T07:19:10","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T01:49:10","slug":"r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Thomas<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nR.D.  SAXENA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALRAM PRASAD SHARMA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t22\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      THOMAS, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  main\t issue posed in this appeal  has  sequential<br \/>\nimportance  for members of the legal profession.  The  issue<br \/>\nis  this:   Has\t the  advocate a lien for his  fees  on\t the<br \/>\nlitigation  papers entrusted to him by his client?  In\tthis<br \/>\ncase  the  Bar Council of India, without deciding the  above<br \/>\ncrucial\t issue,\t has  chosen  to   impose  punishment  on  a<br \/>\ndelinquent  advocate  debarring\t him from practicing  for  a<br \/>\nperiod\tof 18 months and a fine of Rs.1000\/-.  The  advocate<br \/>\nconcerned  was\tfurther\t directed  to return  all  the\tcase<br \/>\nbundles\t which he got from his client  respondent  without<br \/>\nany  delay.  This appeal is filed by the said advocate under<br \/>\nSection 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>      As  the  question involved in this appeal has  topical<br \/>\nimportance for the legal profession we heard learned counsel<br \/>\nat  length.  To appreciate the contentions we would  present<br \/>\nthe factual backdrop as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appellant,  now a septuagenarian, has been  practicing<br \/>\nas  an\tadvocate  mostly  in the  courts  at  Bhopal,  after<br \/>\nenrolling himself as a legal practitioner with the State Bar<br \/>\nCouncil\t of  Madha  Pradesh.   According   to  him,  he\t was<br \/>\nappointed  as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State\t Co-<br \/>\noperative  Bank\t Ltd.  (Bank, for short) in 1990  and  the<br \/>\nBank  continued\t to retain him in that capacity\t during\t the<br \/>\nsucceeding  years.  He was also engaged by the said Bank  to<br \/>\nconduct\t cases in which the Bank was a party.  However,\t the<br \/>\nsaid  retainership did not last long.  On 17.7.1993 the Bank<br \/>\nterminated  the retainership of the appellant and  requested<br \/>\nhim  to\t return\t all the case files relating  to  the  Bank.<br \/>\nInstead\t of  returning the files the appellant\tforwarded  a<br \/>\nconsolidated  bill  to\tthe  Bank   showing  an\t amount\t  of<br \/>\nRs.97,100\/-  as the balance payable by the Bank towards\t the<br \/>\nlegal remuneration to which he is entitled.  He informed the<br \/>\nBank that the files would be returned only after setting his<br \/>\ndues.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Correspondence  went on between the appellant and\t the<br \/>\nBank  regarding the amount, if any, payable to the appellant<br \/>\nas  the balance due to him.  Respondent Bank disclaimed\t any<br \/>\nliability  outstanding\tfrom  them to  the  appellant.\t The<br \/>\ndispute\t remained  unresolved  and the\tcase  bundles  never<br \/>\npassed\tfrom  appellants hands.\t As the cases were  pending<br \/>\nthe  Bank  was anxious to have the files for continuing\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  before the courts\/tribunals concerned.  At\t the<br \/>\nsame  time  the Bank was not disposed to capitulate  to\t the<br \/>\nterms  dictated\t by  the appellant which  they\tregarded  as<br \/>\ngrossly\t unreasonable.\t A complaint was hence filed by\t the<br \/>\nManaging  Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council<br \/>\n(Madhya\t Pradesh)  on  3.2.1994.   It  was  alleged  in\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint   that  appellant  is\t  guilty   of\tprofessional<br \/>\nmisconduct by not returning the files to his client.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  the reply which the appellant submitted before the<br \/>\nBar Council he admitted that the files were not returned but<br \/>\nclaimed\t that  he  has\ta  right to  retain  such  files  by<br \/>\nexercising his right of lien and offered to return the files<br \/>\nas soon as payment is made to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  complaint was then forwarded to the\tDisciplinary<br \/>\nCommittee  of  the  District  Bar Council.   The  State\t Bar<br \/>\nCouncil\t failed\t to dispose of the complaint even after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof one year.  So under Section 36-B of the Advocates<br \/>\nAct  the proceedings stood transferred to the Bar Council of<br \/>\nIndia.\t After holding inquiry the Disciplinary Committee of<br \/>\nthe  Bar  Council  of  India  reached  the  conclusion\tthat<br \/>\nappellant  is  guilty  of   professional  misconduct.\t The<br \/>\nDisciplinary  Committee\t has  stated the  following  in\t the<br \/>\nimpugned order:\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  the  basis  of  the  complaint  as  well  as\tthe<br \/>\ndocuments available on record we are of the opinion that the<br \/>\nRespondent  is guilty of professional misconduct and thereby<br \/>\nhe  is\tliable for punishment.\tThe complainant is a  public<br \/>\ninstitution.   It  was the duty of the Respondent to  return<br \/>\nthe  briefs  to\t the  Bank and also  to\t appear\t before\t the<br \/>\ncommittee  to  revert  his allegations made  in\t application<br \/>\ndated 8.11.95.\tNo such attempt was made by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  this\tappeal\tlearned counsel\t for  the  appellant<br \/>\ncontended  that\t the failure of the Bar Council of India  to<br \/>\nconsider  the singular defence set up by the appellant\ti.e.<br \/>\nhe has a lien over the files for his unpaid fees due to him,<br \/>\nhas  resulted in miscarriage of justice.  The Bank contended<br \/>\nthat  there  was  no fee payable to the\t appellant  and\t the<br \/>\namount\tshown  by him was on account of inflating the  fees.<br \/>\nAlternatively,\tthe  respondent contended that\tan  advocate<br \/>\ncannot\tretain\tthe  files after the client  terminated\t his<br \/>\nengagement and that there is no lien on such files.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We would first examine whether an advocate has lien on<br \/>\nthe  files entrusted to him by the client.  Learned  counsel<br \/>\nfor  the  appellant  endeavoured to base his  contention  on<br \/>\nSection 171 of the Indian Contract Act which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Bankers,\tfactors,  wharfingers, attorneys of a  High<br \/>\nCourt  and policy- brokers may, in the absence of a contract<br \/>\nto the contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance<br \/>\nof  account, any goods bailed to them;\tbut no other persons<br \/>\nhave  a\t right\tto retain, as a security for  such  balance,<br \/>\ngoods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to<br \/>\nthat effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Files  containing copies of the records (perhaps\tsome<br \/>\noriginal  documents also) cannot be equated with the goods<br \/>\nreferred  to in the section.  The advocate keeping the files<br \/>\ncannot\tamount\tto goods bailed.  The word  bailment  is<br \/>\ndefined\t in Section 148 of the Contract Act as the  delivery<br \/>\nof  goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon  a<br \/>\ncontract  that they shall be returned or otherwise  disposed<br \/>\nof  according  to  the directions of the  person  delivering<br \/>\nthem,  when  the  purpose is accomplished.  In the  case  of<br \/>\nlitigation  papers  in\tthe hands of the advocate  there  is<br \/>\nneither\t delivery of goods nor any contract that they  shall<br \/>\nbe  returned or otherwise disposed of.\tThat apart, the word<br \/>\ngoods  mentioned in Section 171 is to be understood in the<br \/>\nsense  in  which that word is defined in the Sale  of  Goods<br \/>\nAct.  It must be remembered that Chapter-VII of the Contract<br \/>\nAct, comprising sections 76 to 123, had been wholly replaced<br \/>\nby  the\t Sales\tof  Goods Act, 1930.  The  word\t goods\tis<br \/>\ndefined\t in Section 2(7) of the Sales of Goods Act as every<br \/>\nkind  of  movable property other than actionable claims\t and<br \/>\nmoney;\tand includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass,<br \/>\nand  things  attached, to or forming part of the land  which<br \/>\nare  agreed to be severed before sale or under the  contract<br \/>\nof sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thus  understood goods to fall within the purview of<br \/>\nSection\t 171  of the Contract Act should have  marketability<br \/>\nand  the person to whom it is bailed should be in a position<br \/>\nto  dispose it of in consideration of money.  In other words<br \/>\nthe goods referred to in Section 171 of the Contract Act are<br \/>\nsaleable  goods.  There is no scope for converting the\tcase<br \/>\nfiles  into money, nor can they be sold to any third  party.<br \/>\nHence,\tthe  reliance placed on Section 171 of the  Contract<br \/>\nAct has no merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  England  the solicitor had a right to\t retain\t any<br \/>\ndeed,  paper  or chattel which has come into his  possession<br \/>\nduring the course of his employment.  It was the position in<br \/>\ncommon\tlaw and it later recognized as the solicitors right<br \/>\nunder  Solicitors Act, 1860.  In Halsburys Laws of England,<br \/>\nit  is stated thus (vide paragraph 226 in volume 44):  226.<br \/>\nSolicitors  rights.   At  common law a\tsolicitor  has\ttwo<br \/>\nrights\twhich  are  termed liens.  The first is a  right  to<br \/>\nretain\tproperty already in his possession until he is\tpaid<br \/>\ncosts  due  to\thim in his professional\t capacity,  and\t the<br \/>\nsecond\tis a right to ask the court to direct that  personal<br \/>\nproperty   recovered  under  a\t judgment  obtained  by\t his<br \/>\nexertions  stand as security for his costs of such recovery.<br \/>\nIn  addition, a solicitor has by statute a right to apply to<br \/>\nthe  court  for\t a charging order on property  recovered  or<br \/>\npreserved  through  his\t instrumentality in respect  of\t his<br \/>\ntaxed  costs of the suit, matter or proceeding prosecuted or<br \/>\ndefended by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Before  India  attained  independence  different\tHigh<br \/>\nCourts\tin  India had adopted different views regarding\t the<br \/>\nquestion  whether an advocate has a lien over the litigation<br \/>\nfiles  kept  with  him.\t <a href=\"\/doc\/173865\/\">In P.\t Krishnamachariar  vs.\t The<br \/>\nOfficial  Assignee  of\tMadras,\t (AIR<\/a>  1932  Madras  256)  a<br \/>\nDivision  Bench held that an advocate could not have such  a<br \/>\nlien  unless there was an express agreement to the contrary.<br \/>\nThe  Division Bench has distinguished an earlier decision of<br \/>\nthe  Bombay High Court in Tyabji Dayabhai &amp; Co.\t vs.   Jetha<br \/>\nDevji  &amp; Co.  (AIR 1927 Bombay 542) wherein the English\t law<br \/>\nrelating to the solicitors lien was followed.  Subsequently,<br \/>\na  Full Bench of the Madras High Court in 1943 followed\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the Division Bench.  A Full Bench of the  Patna<br \/>\nHigh  Court  in In re B.N.  Advocate in the matter of  Misc.<br \/>\nJudl.\tCase No.18\/33 (AIR 1933 Pat 571) held the view\tthat<br \/>\nan  advocate could not claim a right to retain the certified<br \/>\ncopy  of the judgment obtained by him on the premise that an<br \/>\nappeal was to be filed against it.  Of course the Bench said<br \/>\nthat  if the client had specifically instructed him to do so<br \/>\nit is open to him to keep it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      After  independence the position would have  continued<br \/>\nuntil  the  enactment  of the Advocates Act 1961  which\t has<br \/>\nrepealed  a host of enactments including Indian Bar  Council<br \/>\nAct.   When the new Bar Council of India came into existence<br \/>\nit  framed  Rules called the Bar Council of India  Rules  as<br \/>\nempowered   by\tthe  Advocates\t Act.\tSuch  Rules  contain<br \/>\nprovision   specifically   prohibiting\tan   advocate\tfrom<br \/>\nadjusting  the\tfees payable to him by a client against\t his<br \/>\nown personal liability to the client.  As a rule an Advocate<br \/>\nshall  not do anything whereby he abuses or takes  advantage<br \/>\nof  the\t confidence reposed in him by his client,(vide\tRule\n<\/p>\n<p>24).   In  this context a reference can be made to Rules  28<br \/>\nand 29 which are extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>      28.   After  the termination of the  proceeding,\tthe<br \/>\nAdvocate  shall\t be  at liberty to appropriate\ttowards\t the<br \/>\nsettled\t fee due to him, any sum remaining unexpended out of<br \/>\nthe  amount paid or sent to him for expenses, or any  amount<br \/>\nthat has come into his hands in that proceeding.\n<\/p>\n<p>      29.   Where  the\tfee has been  left  unsettled,\tthe<br \/>\nAdvocate  shall be entitled to deduct, out of any moneys  of<br \/>\nthe client remaining in his hands, at the termination of the<br \/>\nproceeding  for\t which he had been engaged, the fee  payable<br \/>\nunder  the rules of the Court, in force for the time  being,<br \/>\nor  by\tthen  settled  and the balance,\t if  any,  shall  be<br \/>\nrefunded to the client.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thus,  even after providing a right for an advocate to<br \/>\ndeduct\tthe fees out of any money of the client remaining in<br \/>\nhis  hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the<br \/>\nadvocate was engaged, it is important to notice that no lien<br \/>\nis  provided on the litigation files kept with him.  In\t the<br \/>\nconditions  prevailing\tin  India with\tlots  of  illiterate<br \/>\npeople\tamong  the litigant public it may not  be  advisable<br \/>\nalso to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the<br \/>\nfees  claimed  by  him.\t Any such lien\tif  permitted  would<br \/>\nbecome susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  is\t yet another reason which dissuades us\tfrom<br \/>\ngiving\tapproval to any such lien.  We are sure that  nobody<br \/>\nwould\tdispute\t the  proposition  that\t  the  cause  in   a<br \/>\ncourt\/tribunal\tis far more important for all concerned than<br \/>\nthe  right of the legal practitioner for his remuneration in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the services rendered for espousing the cause on<br \/>\nbehalf\tof the litigant.  If a need arises for the  litigant<br \/>\nto  change  his\t counsel pendente lite, that which  is\tmore<br \/>\nimportant  should  have\t its even course  flowed  unimpeded.<br \/>\nRetention  of  records\tfor the unpaid remuneration  of\t the<br \/>\nadvocate  would\t impede\t such course and the  cause  pending<br \/>\njudicial  disposal  would be badly impaired.  If  a  medical<br \/>\npractitioner is allowed a legal right to withhold the papers<br \/>\nrelating  to the treatment of his patient which he thus\t far<br \/>\nadministered to him for securing the unpaid bill, that would<br \/>\nlead  to dangerous consequences for the uncured patient\t who<br \/>\nis  wanting  to\t change\t his   doctor.\t Perhaps  the\tsaid<br \/>\nillustration  may  be  an   over-statement  as\ta  necessary<br \/>\ncorollary  for\tapproving  the\tlien claimed  by  the  legal<br \/>\npractitioner.\tYet the illustration is not too far-fetched.<br \/>\nNo  professional  can  be given the right  to  withhold\t the<br \/>\nreturnable records relating to the work done by him with his<br \/>\nclients\t matter\t on  the strength of any claim\tfor  unpaid<br \/>\nremuneration.\tThe  alternative  is that  the\tprofessional<br \/>\nconcerned can resort to other legal remedies for such unpaid<br \/>\nremuneration.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t litigant  must\t have  the  freedom  to\t change\t his<br \/>\nadvocate  when he feels that the advocate engaged by him  is<br \/>\nnot  capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that\t his<br \/>\nconduct\t is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis,<br \/>\nor  for any other reason.  For whatever reason, if a  client<br \/>\ndoes  not  want to continue the engagement of  a  particular<br \/>\nadvocate  it would be a professional requirement  consistent<br \/>\nwith the dignity of the profession that he should return the<br \/>\nbrief  to  the\tclient.\t  It  is  time\tto  hold  that\tsuch<br \/>\nobligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  civil\t cases, the appointment of an advocate by  a<br \/>\nparty  would be deemed to be in force until it is determined<br \/>\nwith the leave of the court, (vide order 3, Rule 4(1) of the<br \/>\nCode  of Civil Procedure).  In criminal cases, every  person<br \/>\naccused\t of  an\t offence  has the right to  consult  and  be<br \/>\ndefended  by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now<br \/>\nmade  a\t fundamental  right  under   Article  22(1)  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tThe said right is absolute in itself and  it<br \/>\ndoes  not  depend on other laws.  In this context  reference<br \/>\ncan be made to the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/857833\/\">State of Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh\t vs.   Shobharam and ors.  (AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 1910).\t The<br \/>\nwords  of  his choice in Article 22(1) indicate\t that  the<br \/>\nright  of  the\taccused to change an advocate whom  he\tonce<br \/>\nengaged\t in  the same case, cannot be whittled down by\tthat<br \/>\nadvocate  by withholding the case bundle on the premise that<br \/>\nhe  has to get the fees for the services already rendered to<br \/>\nthe client.\n<\/p>\n<p>      If  a  party terminates the engagement of an  advocate<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  culmination of the proceedings that party\tmust<br \/>\nhave  the  entire file with him to engage another  advocate.<br \/>\nBut  if the advocate who is changed midway adopts the  stand<br \/>\nthat  he would not return the file until the fees claimed by<br \/>\nhim  is\t paid, the situation perhaps may turn  to  dangerous<br \/>\nproportion.  There may be cases when a party has no resource<br \/>\nto  pay\t the  huge  amount claimed by the  advocate  as\t his<br \/>\nremuneration.\tA  party in a litigation may have a  version<br \/>\nthat he has already paid the legitimate fee to the advocate.<br \/>\nAt  any rate if the litigation is pending the party has\t the<br \/>\nright  to  get\tthe  papers from the advocate  whom  he\t has<br \/>\nchanged\t so  that  the\tnew counsel can be  briefed  by\t him<br \/>\neffectively.   In  either case it is impermissible  for\t the<br \/>\nerstwhile  counsel to retain the case bundle on the  premise<br \/>\nthat fees is yet to be paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Even  if there is no lien on the litigation papers  of<br \/>\nhis  client  an advocate is not without remedies to  realise<br \/>\nthe fee which he is legitimately entitled to.  But if he has<br \/>\na duty to return the files to his client on being discharged<br \/>\nthe  litigant too has a right to have the files returned  to<br \/>\nhim,  more  so when the remaining part of the lis has to  be<br \/>\nfought\tin  the court.\tThis right of the litigant is to  be<br \/>\nread  as  the corresponding counterpart of the\tprofessional<br \/>\nduty of the advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Misconduct  envisaged  in Section 35 of the  Advocates<br \/>\nAct  is\t not  defined.\t The  section  uses  the  expression<br \/>\nmisconduct,   professional   or\t  otherwise.\tThe   word<br \/>\nmisconduct  is\ta relative term.  It has to be\tconsidered<br \/>\nwith reference to the subject matter and the context wherein<br \/>\nsuch  term  occurs.   It literally means  wrong\t conduct  or<br \/>\nimproper conduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Corpus  Juris Secundum, contains the following passage<br \/>\nat page 740 (vol.7):\n<\/p>\n<p>      Professional  misconduct may consist in betraying the<br \/>\nconfidence  of\ta  client,  in attempting by  any  means  to<br \/>\npractise  a  fraud or impose on or deceive the court or\t the<br \/>\nadverse\t party\tor his counsel, and in fact in\tany  conduct<br \/>\nwhich  tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to<br \/>\nalienate  the  favourable  opinion which the  public  should<br \/>\nentertain concerning it.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The expression professional misconduct was attempted<br \/>\nto  be defined by Darling, J., in In re A Solicitor ex parte<br \/>\nthe  Law  Society [(1912) 1 KB 302] in the following  terms:<br \/>\nIt  it\tis  shown that an Advocate in the  pursuit  of\this<br \/>\nprofession  has done something with regard to it which would<br \/>\nbe  reasonably\tregarded as disgraceful or dishonourable  by<br \/>\nhis  professional  brethren of good repute  and\t competency,<br \/>\nthen  it  is open to say that he is guilty  of\tprofessional<br \/>\nmisconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  this\tcontext\t it  is to  be\tmentioned  that\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  definition secured approval by the Privy  Council<br \/>\nin George Frier Grahame vs.  Attorney-General, Fiji,(1936 PC\n<\/p>\n<p>224).\tWe  are also inclined to take that wide canvass\t for<br \/>\nunderstanding  the import of the expression misconduct\tin<br \/>\nthe  context in which it is referred to in Section 35 of the<br \/>\nAdvocates Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We, therefore, that the refusal to return the files to<br \/>\nthe  client when he demanded the same amounted to misconduct<br \/>\nunder  Section\t35 of the Act.\tHence, the appellant in\t the<br \/>\npresent case is liable to punishment for such misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>      However,\tregarding  the quantum of punishment we\t are<br \/>\ndisposed  to take into account two broad aspects:  (1)\tthis<br \/>\ncourt  has  not pronounced, so far, on the question  whether<br \/>\nadvocate  has  a  lien on the files for his fees.   (2)\t the<br \/>\nappellant  would  have bona fide believed, in the  light  of<br \/>\ndecisions  of certain High Courts, that he did have a  lien.<br \/>\nIn such circumstances it is not necessary to inflict a harsh<br \/>\npunishment   on\t the  appellant.   A  reprimand\t  would\t  be<br \/>\nsufficient  in the interest of justice on the special  facts<br \/>\nof this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We,   therefore,\talter  the   punishment\t to  one  of<br \/>\nreprimanding  the appellant.  However, we make it clear that<br \/>\nif any advocate commits this type of professional misconduct<br \/>\nin  future he would be liable to such quantum of  punishment<br \/>\nas  the Bar Council will determine and the lesser punishment<br \/>\nimposed now need not be counted as a precedent.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 Author: Thomas Bench: K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: R.D. SAXENA Vs. RESPONDENT: BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/2000 BENCH: K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. The main issue posed in this appeal has sequential importance for members of the legal profession. The issue is this: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3113,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\",\"name\":\"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000"},"wordCount":3113,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000","name":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T01:49:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-on-22-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}