The Supreme Court has brought in a lawyer who, in his advice to his client, allegedly speculated about the outcome of a pending appeal.
At first glance, we believe this borders on professional misconduct and needs to be continued, the bank, which included Judges AM Khanwilkar, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, said, instructing the party to file an affidavit and reveal the name of the said advocate.
The appeal in Apex Court arose out of a court order dismissing a husband (plaintiff) motion for an injunction against his wife that prevented her from bringing proceedings against him in the Arizona Supreme Court in Maricopa County initiate. Since the High Court also upheld the court’s order, the plaintiff’s husband turned to the Apex Court.
The bank of the Apex Court contradicted the views of both the Court and the High Court and overturned the orders issued. It was observed as follows:
“Anyway, while the indicated action for statement and instruction to transfer custody of the minor child was pending, the complainant filed a motion in court which was denied on the grounds that the Arizona Supreme Court was located outside India and was not subordinate to that court. This view established by the court is utterly wrong and ill-advised. The relief alleged by the complainant concerned the issuance of an injunction against the respondent and not against the Arizona Supreme Court as such When the matter was referred to the High Court at the behest of the complainant, even the High Court erred that the courts in India could only rule on the controversy between the parties after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on the pending case not D the purpose for which the complainant applied for the injunction. In any case, no judgment on it.The court was brought to our knowledge that if the other party had already started proceedings in another court, including outside of India, an injunction cannot be issued, even if the actual situation justifies it . In our opinion, both the General Court and the Supreme Court misapplied the legal situation and made a manifest error in submitting the interim injunction made by the applicant against the respondent while the proceedings between the parties were pending before the Bhopal Court. “
The bank then stopped the woman from proceeding with her pending lawsuit in the Arizona Supreme Court or from filing other proceedings, including interlocutory motions, in any subsequent proceeding (other than the one pending at Bhopal) pending further orders from the court be enacted in Bhopal.
The court noted a response from the wife (Respondent) in relation to the delivery of the notice stating that her attorney in India had advised her that the complaint pending before that court will not be successful at all. With one serious exception, the bank found the following:
“We do not understand how a lawyer appearing on the matter or directing the litigant who is party to the Supreme Court of India would be able to anticipate the outcome of the proceedings or speculate on the outcome of the proceedings At first glance, in our opinion, this borders on professional misconduct and must be continued. In order to resolve this problem, we instruct the respondents to submit an affidavit and to disclose the name of the lawyer from India who advised the Respondent and on the basis of this she has been advised to file a position before the Arizona Supreme Court, as set out in Appendix P-2 of Impact Assessment No. 6177 of 2021. This proceeding is being treated as a suo moto action brought by this court. The Respondent must respond within two weeks Submit an affidavit today and the Suo-Moto procedure on February 5th, 2021 announced by the firm. “Quote: LL 2021 SC 32
Click here to read / download the order