Question

In which case, where the advocate of one of the parties was asking for continuous adjournments to the immense inconvenience of the opposite party, it was held by the Supreme Court that seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who were present without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of the duty that an advocate owed to the Court, amounting to misconduct.

• A. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde
• B. Sambhu Ram Yadav v.Hanuman Das Khatry
• C. Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali
• D. None of the above

Hint:

An advocate's duties are not just to the client, but also to the court, the opponent, and the profession. Assisting in the prompt and efficient disposal of cases is a key duty to the court.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question refers to an advocate's duty to the court, which includes assisting the court in the speedy administration of justice. Seeking unnecessary or frivolous adjournments, especially when witnesses are present and ready to be examined, is a tactic that wastes the court's time and causes hardship to the opposing party. The Supreme Court has held this to be a form of professional misconduct.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
In the case of N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde, (2001) 6 SCC 135, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of advocates seeking repeated adjournments without valid reasons. The court observed that an advocate has a duty to the court as well as to the client. Seeking adjournments for the purpose of delaying proceedings, particularly when witnesses have traveled to be present in court, is a breach of this duty. The court held that such conduct amounts to professional misconduct as it obstructs the administration of justice.
- \textit{Sambhu Ram Yadav} dealt with representing conflicting parties.
- \textit{Noratanman Courasia} provided a broad definition of what constitutes misconduct.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The ruling was made in the case of N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde.