Advocate Cannot Give Undertaking To Court Without Client's Explicit Authority : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that given the fiduciary relationship between an advocate and a client, an advocate cannot provide an undertaking without explicit authorization from the client.

“a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary and the former is cast in terms of agency of the latter. It is also clear that the lawyer is to respect the decision-making right of the client. It flows from this that any undertaking given to a Court cannot be without requisite authority from the client.”, the court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sanjay Karol heard the case where the Appellant, who were guilty of disobeying the court's injunction order, gave an undertaking in 2007 before the trial court through his lawyer stating that they would not alienate the suit property. The trial court, recording the appellant's undertaking, had extended the order on several occasions.

However, disobeying the undertaking submitted before the Court, the Appellant had alienated the suit property to some other person.

When the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC was filed by the respondent in 2011 complaining about the Appellant's disobedience of the Court's order passed under Rules 1 & 2, the Appellant stated that they haven't authorized their lawyer to filed an undertaking which stated they would not alienate the suit's property.

Being aggrieved by the High Court's decision holding them guilty of contempt prompted the Appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment penned by Justice Karol emphasized that while a lawyer must adhere to a client's instructions and cannot act without authorization, in the present case, the appellants failed to prove that their counsel's 2007 undertaking was unauthorized.

The court also noted that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to contest the undertaking but refrained from doing so for over four years.

Thus, the Court dismissed the Appellant's reliance on an argument about the unauthorized submission of an undertaking before the trial court.

Also From Judgment: O 39 R 2A CPC | Even If Injunction Order Was Subsequently Set Aside, Party Remains Liable For Its Prior Violation : Supreme Court

Case Title: SMT LAVANYA C & ANR VERSUS VITTAL GURUDAS PAI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 290

Click here to read/download the judgment