Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D. K. Gandhi (Supreme Court)

Bar of Indian Lawyers vs. D. K. Gandhi (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (d_k_gandhi_mathias_ncdrc.pdf)

Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC

The State Commission, Delhi, held that services rendered by a Lawyer would not come within the ambit of s. 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the client executes the power of attorney authorizing the Counsel to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act. The State Commission held that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking.

This verdict was reversed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the ground that lawyers are rendering a service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service and that there was no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was held that though a Lawyer may not be responsible for the favourable outcome of a case as the result/out come does not depend upon only on lawyers’ work, but, if there was deficiency in rendering services promised, for which consideration in the form of fee is received by him, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act.

The said judgement of the NCDRC has now been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Related Judgements

  1. Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) 

    (i) A stock option which is subject to a ‘lock-in’ is not a chargeable perquisite u/s 17(2) on the date of grant, vesting or exercise. The benfit is purely notional. (ii) s. 17(2)(iiia) inserted w.e.f 1.4.2000 is not clarificatory; (iii) … Infosys Technologies (Supreme Court) Read More »
  2. Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the…
  3. Sree Ayyanar Spinning vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Once the assessee has moved the rectification application within four years from the date of the appeal order, the Tribunal cannot reject that application on the ground that four years have lapsed, which includes the period of pendency of the application before the Tribunal.The Tribunal is bound to decide…
  4. Deepak Agro Foods vs. State (Supreme Court) 

    Where the High Court was satisfied that the assessment order had been back-dated and directed that a fresh order be passed by a different AO and the assessee filed an appeal arguing that the assessment proceedings should have been declared null and void, held:
     
    (a) All irregular or erroneous…
  5. CCE vs. Ratan Melting (Supreme Court 5 Judges) 

    While circulars and instructions issued by the Board are binding on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should…