Client Bound by Advocate’s Courtroom Concession: Calcutta HC Refuses to Recall Order

The Calcutta High Court has reinforced the sanctity of judicial records and the binding nature of concessions made by legal counsel, ruling that a litigant cannot resile from a settlement recorded in open court without cogent proof of unauthorized conduct and prompt action. The court underscored that the principle of finality in litigation remains paramount, especially where a party retains the benefits of a settlement while simultaneously attempting to challenge its validity.

A Single Judge bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth delivered this decision while dismissing an application for recall of an order that had disposed of a writ petition based on a mutual settlement. The Court examined whether a lawyer’s statement could bind a client in the absence of written consent, particularly when the client later claims the advocate acted without authority.

Key Takeaways

Sanctity of Court Records

Statements of fact regarding what transpired during a hearing, as recorded in a judgment, are conclusive and cannot be easily rebutted by subsequent affidavits.

Agency of Legal Counsel

A lawyer may bind their client through statements that are proper steps in accomplishing the purpose of their engagement, and courts are entitled to act on such concessions made in open court.

Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate

A litigant who retains the benefit of an order, such as holding onto a refund cheque, is estopped from assailing that same order later.

Mandatory Promptness in Repudiation

Any grievance against an advocate for making an unauthorized compromise must be immediate and accompanied by formal complaints to bodies like the Bar Council to be considered credible.

The Binding Nature of Counsel's Statement

The Court observed that the petitioner sought to recall an order passed on September 24, 2025, which recorded his willingness to accept a reduced refund amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the Haldia Municipality. While the petitioner argued that his erstwhile advocate acted without instructions, the Court found that the matter had been specifically adjourned previously to allow advocates to seek instructions.

The Court has following directions:

"CAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed. Before parting, it is clarified that, if the cheque already issued has become stale, the respondent Municipality shall, upon return of the said cheque, issue a fresh cheque for Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) in favour of 'Adarsha Hotel & Restaurant' within four weeks from the date of such return."

Significant importance was placed on the petitioner's failure to return the cheque or lodge a complaint against the advocate. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A litigant who genuinely believes that his counsel has bartered away a substantial part of his claim without instructions would be expected to act against that counsel promptly. The total absence of any such step undermines the allegation."

Ratio

In the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Constitution of India, a court will not recall a settlement-based order solely on a client’s plea of unauthorized concession by counsel if the client's conduct including unexplained delay, retention of benefits, and failure to initiate action against the counsel indicates an afterthought. Statements recorded by a Judge regarding courtroom proceedings are conclusive, and the power of recall cannot be used to re-argue a case on merits after a valid accord and satisfaction.

Background

The dispute originated from the cancellation of a stall allotment at the Sonartari Shopping Complex by the Haldia Municipality in 2019. The petitioner had initially sought a full refund of Rs. 8,00,000/- plus interest. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that his client would accept Rs. 6,00,000/- as full and final satisfaction, leading to the disposal of the case.

Six months later, the petitioner moved a recall application, supported by an undated letter, claiming he never consented to the lower amount. However, the Court noted that the amount agreed upon was consistent with the original 2019 cancellation order, which the petitioner had never challenged. Relying on Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh ( "(2015) 7 SCC 373": 2015 CaseBase(SC) 269), the Court noted that a lawyer must be authorized to compromise, but distinguished it by noting that here, the concession was directly related to the subject matter and followed an adjournment meant for seeking instructions. The Court also cited Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ( "(2008) 12 SCC 481": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 564) to emphasize that litigants must approach the court with clean hands and that equitable relief under Constitution of India is not available to those who suppress facts or take shifting stands, as seen in Jamal Molla v. State of West Bengal.

Case Details:
Case No.: C.A.N. 1 OF 2026 in W.P.A. 6892 OF 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:2346
Case Title: Ganapati Maity Vs. Haldia Municipality & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Debashis Karmakar, Adv.; Mr. Rabindra Kr. Mitra, Adv.; Mr. Satyan Ojha, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2959