Site news


Picture of System Administrator
by System Administrator - Friday, 27 February 2015, 6:59 AM

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangaluru : Few experts have suggested Government should bring an amendment to advocate Act and make stringent rules for transparency in advocates work as many including police department and others are said to be victims of few advocates dishonesty and prosecutors case become loose and police department and many others lose water tight and air tight cases.. A litigant, who approaches the court, Advocate is bound to produce all the documents provided by client and executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If advocate withholds a vital document and absent himself on the day of crucial hearing in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.".Reportedly for an advocate reputation for honesty is a huge asset. And dishonesty will cost them heavily as clients have become intelligent and started filing complaints in Bar council against dishonest advocate fearlessly under advocate Act . If advocate clients and opponents and judges once begin to doubt the advocate honesty he will find it far harder to get what he want.  Quite understandably nothing will be taken on trust; advocate will have to prove everything. Nobody will believe what that advocate say. And that, for an advocate, is a considerable handicap in his profession. A lawyer may take you for a ride or create hurdles by absenting himself crucial hearing and not filing all the fact of the case and not filing all the documents given to him or not filing your case on time or refusing to hand over your documents once the case is closed. As most people lack awareness about legal procedures and provisions, it is easy for few dishonest lawyers to mislead them. Here's how being vigilant can save you money and trouble. You can change the advocate if you feel he is dishonest to the core says a client.

Resjudicata not applicable to the orders obtained by fraud: If an advocate is damaging the case by suppressing the facts and getting adverse order by fraud such order does not become Resjudicata and such order can be challenged in the court of law again by putting in all facts and orders can be reviewed and fresh orders can be passed by judiciary. Courts have held that "The earlier writ petitions got dismissed on making factually incorrect submissions by the learned Counsel who appeared for the fourth respondent's society. That apart, this Court has not gone into the merits of the earlier writ petitions. Therefore, dismissal of earlier writ petitions of the petitioners do not come in the way of maintainability of these writ petitions.”.It is worthwhile to extract the relevant paragraphs of the above decisions of the Apex Court as the same, with all fours, applicable to the fact situation in support of the case of the petitioners.."7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case. Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and to prove it by true evidence". The principle of 'finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest, litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands, we are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

2004(4) SUPREME 44 paras 9, 10 and 11:"9. This Court in express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. has held thus:"Fraud on power; voids the order if it is not exercised bonafide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bonafide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say, to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, . A Power is exercised malaciously if its repository is motivated by personal animosity towards those who are directly affected by its exercise. Use of a power for an 'alien' purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred is mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, 1904 AC 515, that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the power shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred'. It was said by Warrngton. C.J. in short v. Poole Corporation, (1926) 2 Ch. 66 that:"No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative.".In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956)2 QB 702 at Pp. 712-13 Lord Denning, LJ. Said "No judgment of a Court, no order of Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."(emphasis supplied).See also, in Lazarus case at p. 722 per Lord Parker, C.J."Fraud" vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.".All these three English decisions have been cited with approval by this Court in Pratap Singh's case.".