Isabella Mariam

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, Single Bench of Justice Manish Kumar, dismissed a civil contempt application filed against a respondent for allegedly violating a court order by executing sale deeds during the pendency of a writ petition. The Court determined that a statement recorded as made by counsel before the Appellate Court — without any specific authorization or instruction from the client — cannot constitute a binding undertaking enforceable in contempt proceedings. The Court held that lawyers must act on client instructions rather than exercise independent judgment on matters affecting the client's legal rights, and that no such authorization was demonstrated on record.

The contempt application was filed alleging non-compliance with the judgment and order dated 02.09.2009 passed in a Special Appeal, wherein the appellate court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellant did not intend to sell any property.

Also Read: Nepotism And Self-Aggrandizement Anathema To Democratic System: Supreme Court Cancels Deluxe Flat Allotments To Haryana Housing Society Officials And Their Subordinates

The applicants contended that despite this statement, respondent no. 1 executed sale deeds on 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 during the pendency of the writ petition, allegedly violating the interim order dated 27.07.2009 directing that the nature of the property in dispute should not be changed till disposal of the application.

The respondent submitted that no undertaking had been given and that he had not instructed his counsel to make any such statement before the appellate court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh. It was further stated that the writ petition had been withdrawn on 11.01.2010 and that no interim order subsisted thereafter.

The Court observed that before the Appellate Court, the counsel for the appellant “says that”. It recorded that “There is nothing on record that the counsel was instructed by the respondent no. 1 to give any undertaking before the Appellate Court. It is the counsel who seems to have stated before the Appellate Court on his own.”

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh, the Court held: “If for any reason, the writ court perceived the oral request made by the respondents to have justified the ends of justice and desired to accept the concession so made by the counsel for the appellant Society, the said request not being the subject-matter of the writ petition required the Court to query whether the counsel for the appellant Society has been authorised to make such a statement by the appellant Society or whether any such resolution has been passed by the appellant Society giving concession in matters of this nature.”

The Court further reproduced “The law is now well settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorised to settle and compromise a claim, that merely on the basis of his employment he has no implied or ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise/settlement.”

It also recorded “It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorised agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right of the client.”

On the applicant’s contention regarding conjoint reading of the statement and interim order, the Court observed, “the Appellate Court had set aside the interim order dated 27.07.2009 while remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge, so it can not be read alongwith the same.” The Court further recorded, “During the period of withdrawal of the writ petition and special appeal, there existed no interim order.”

Also Read: Magistrate Legally Bound To Consider Subsequent Closure Report Even After Taking Cognizance On Charge Sheet, Ignoring It Amounts To Procedural Illegality: Allahabad High Court

The Court directed: “In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made out against the respondent no. 1, thus, present contempt application is hereby dismissed. Charge framed against the respondent no. 1 is hereby withdrawn. Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Anurag Srivastava, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Anand Dubey, Anurag Dixit, Bhupendra Pratap Singh

For the Respondents: Pritish Kumar, Indrapal Singh, N.L. Pandey, Pt. S. Chandra, R.S. Tripathi, S.N. Tilhari, Vivek Sarswal

Case Title: Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:11528

Case Number: Contempt Application (Civil) No. - 99 of 2010

Bench: Justice Manish Kumar