The Supreme Court in the matter of Om Kumar vs. Suresh Kumar (Civil Appeals No. 833-834 of 2020), decided on 30.01.2020 has observed that unequivocal statements made by counsel will be binding on their clients.
Facts
In this case, during the hearing of the eviction revision petition before the High Court, the learned counsel for the respondenttenant had urged before the Court that the tenant was ready and willing to handover possession of the suit premises subject to the landlord (present appellant) agreeing to reinduct him as tenant in equivalent area occupied by him in the suit building. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant, unequivocally, stated before the High Court that the appellant was not averse to the offer so made by the tenant. The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.
Issue
Before the Apex Court, the issue was whether the landlord is bound by this statement made by the Counsel before the High Court.
Ratio
The Court noted that in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs. vs. Balwan Singh, it was observed that admissions of fact made by a counsel are binding upon their principals as long as they are unequivocal, where, however doubt exists as to a purported admission, the court should be wary to accept such admissions until and unless the counsel or the advocate is authorised by his principal to make such admissions.
It was further observed that lawyers generally do not have implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed. And that lawyer can make decisions as to tactics without consulting the client, while the client has a right to make decisions that can affect his rights.
Applying the said principles, the Bench finally held that as the engagement was in respect of eviction proceedings and the statement was in relation to the commitment of the appellant qua the subject matter hereof and being an unequivocal statement, it will be binding on the appellant.