Consumer Protection Act
Consumer Protection Act
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (29 February) reserved a decision on whether advocates can be held liable for lack of services under the Consumer Protection Act. A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal heard the case. On the last day, chief justice V Giri, amicus curiae in the case, addressed the bench. The case involving members of the bar stems from a 2007 ruling by the National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission.
It was held that a lawyer cannot be held responsible for a favorable outcome of a case because the outcome/outcome does not depend solely on the action of the lawyer. However, if the promised service had not been provided, taken into account in terms of payment, it was contrary to this order and solicitors could take action under the Consumer Protection Act and appeal to the High Court. In early 2009, the high court had stayed the challenged commission decision.
lawyers attending courts without the Consumer Protection Act; but other businesses providing lawyers can be brought under the CPA : Amicus In today’s hearing, Giri helped the court highlight two important factors. At the outset of his argument, senior counsel emphasized that engaged lawyers for court or conferences may need to be treated somewhat differently from lawyers approached for their legal services e.g
He then proceeded to the first part of his argument, which was based on the proposition that the defendant was the principal and the attorney was the agent. Therefore, what the judge does binds the defendant., counsel said. To emphasize this, Giri first gave how a judge can distinguish himself on the strength of the name of a lawyer executed on his behalf. The attorney general also touched upon the third rule of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which stipulates the importance of nomenclature.
On this occasion, he again cited the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs Union Bank Of India AndOrs., 1991 AIR 2234, which inter alia drew attention to the part of the solicitor in passing the order entered into the contract and verified their amusement as agents to the aspirant. The applicable portion of the cited judgment is as follows “ There’s no reason to suppose that the council intended to dock the right of counsel involved in a action .
Moving on, Giri also mentioned another case of Salil Dutt. T.S. M.Sc. and M.C. Private Ltd., 1993 SCR (1) 794, to prove that the arbitrator is the agent of the client. “An advocate is a representative of the segment. and the acts which he has done, made within the limits of the authority conferred upon him, are the acts and words of the officer, that is, of the party to whom he was employed.” was observed by the Court. Himalayan Coop to disclose that attorneys have been authorized to settle the claims and enter into an agreement.
Substitute. “A qualifying firm enables an attorney to work on a retainer for a client. A fundamental principle of the attorney-client relationship is that attorneys owe their clients. As part of their duties, attorneys assume all the traditional duties that agents owe to their superiors and must, at a minimum, respect the client’s autonomy to make decisions that are relevant to agent objectives and often the according to Axis.
In other words, for the sake of retaining counsel, a client has the right to choose how to achieve a legal objective, while the client has the right to decide what the objective will be decision-making. then the lawyer is more likely to be of ineffective assistance.” Relying on appropriate decisions, including.
Essentially, the thrust of Giri’s case was that once an advocate is the agent of the client and appears before the court and acts on his behalf, the same cannot be equated with an independent minister enter into the relationship thereof , except that you may not be its representative or agent.
Justice Trivedi replied: Do you mean that all the representatives, are now represented (the principal will not fall under the Act)? Giri soon replied in the negative for the same. He represented the conduct of the trial. “The point is that acting on his behalf is not serving him. What I do stands in his place. I speak strictly in the square of the court and in the cases that go before the court. I will represent him in court o whatever I do.
Incipiently, as part of his submission, he appertained to the case ofO.P. Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana, 2011 AIR SCW 2980 to emphasize the significance of freedom of expression in the proceedings. Swaroop read the following paragraph from the judgment before adding that the Consumer Protection Act elided this right.” Counsel countries and emphasizes the abecedarian value of freedom of expression. It’s a practical incarnation of the principle of freedom of speech. Freedom of expression in debate.”