Dismissing a plea filed by a man who claimed that the lawyer appearing for BJP MLA Nishikant Dubey in an ongoing criminal petition appeared for the former and their professional relationship continued, the Jharkhand High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh to find the plea. to be “misunderstood” and filed with a “bad motive” to obstruct legal proceedings.

A single bench of judges Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in his order of October 28 he said: “…the court finds that prima facie with bad reason, so that this court cannot decide the case today, respondent no. 2 submitted to the previously mentioned file, however, at the previous time, a two-week deadline was taken by the educational advisor who appears for the respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit and the counter affidavit has not yet been filed and even today the aforesaid AI has been filed even the prayer is not made today for any time to file counter affidavit.”

“As such, the aforesaid AI is misconceived and the same is dismissed with a cost of rupees one lakh. The cost will be filed before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi within two weeks. Respondent no. 2 is directed to submit its receipt in the present case.” Justice Dwivedi added.

As per the facts, one M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital obtained a loan of Rs. 93 crore from Punjab National Bank, which subsequently became a non-performing asset (NPA). Consequently, the bank initiated a recovery procedure before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which resulted in the issuance of a certificate of claim and recovery against the hospital.

Following this, the property was put up for auction, and a related civil claim was previously dismissed by the court.

Anamika Gautam (petitioner no. 2), wife of Nishikant Dubey (petitioner no. 1), serves as trustee of Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, which acquired the property at auction. Petitioner no. 1–Dubey, said he had nothing to do with the property; however, he was falsely named as an accused in the FIR filed by the secretary of M/s Paritran Medical College and Hospital, who had in turn alleged that Dubey and his wife had fraudulently acquired the property.

In the previous hearing, the High Court had issued a notice to the man – one Shiv Dutt Sharma, who was added as a defendant then, asking him to produce all necessary documents within a week.

In his plea, Sharma submitted that advocate Prashant Pallav, who was representing Dubey, had previously represented Sharma in another matter and in view of the same and in the light of Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the professional relationship of continued even if the case ended at an earlier time. For these reasons, he submitted that an appropriate order may kindly be passed.

Pallav, who appeared for the petitioners, said he appeared for Sharma in a case arising under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Enforcement Act, 2002 as junior counsel for a senior advocate in a writ petition from 2012, which was decided in October 2014, he claimed that apart from there is nothing to suggest that any material was disclosed by him in relation to Sharma. He then claimed that Gautam is the trustee of the buyer and Dubey has nothing to do with the said trust.

However, Pallav clarified that Sharma “is in the habit of making accusations against lawyers.” He also claimed that the AI ​​was filed with an ulterior motive as the matter was fixed for final hearing.

Expressing concern over the allegations against Pallav, the high court said: “It is very unfortunate that this petition has been filed which makes an allegation against a practicing lawyer of this court. Many lawyers appear at one time for one petitioner and at another time for another.”

On perusal of the contentions in the writ petition, the Court observed that it was clear that the reference was to a case arising out of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which was central to the title claim and referred to in the accompanying AI.

Expounding on Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the court said the provision protects both the party and the advocate. It was said, “This provision protects both the party and the lawyer. This protective umbrella also saves the lawyer from unwanted and unnecessary proceedings. After all, the counselor is only carrying the mandate of the client and he has no personal interest in this matter, being a member of a noble profession and society considers him indispensable. It is true that the lawyer must exercise the utmost care when handling the case of clients. It cannot be said that the lawyers are with the parties, and likewise, for the culpa committed by the parties, the lawyers cannot be punished.”

The Court pointed out, “In the case, the procedures for the function of acts or omission without fear are also directed against the lawyer. This is an independent profession and as such the lawyer should be allowed to perform his function without any outside pressure. In the way Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, the learned Advocate has filed the present AI and as pointed out, which has been mentioned above against one of the Senior Advocates of this Court, he has also made the same allegation in a WP (PIL) which was dismissed with a cost of rupees one lakh which clearly suggests that for ulterior motives and with malice the present IA has been filed which needs to be dealt with accordingly.”

The court warned against haphazard filing of such applications, saying it could open the floodgates for frivolous cases against lawyers if not properly addressed.

The court also directed Sharma to file a counter affidavit within two weeks failing which the writ petition will be decided without it without further adjournment being allowed. The interim order passed earlier will remain in force until the next date of hearing. When Sharma’s counsel said that the deadline for depositing the fine amount may be extended as the defendant would like to approach the Supreme Court, the high court allowed the same and asked Sharma to file the receipt of the fine amount within four weeks.

The matter is further listed on December 9.

Case Title: Dr. Nishikant Dubey And Anr vs State of Jharkhand and Anr

Click here to read the Judgment