# Ram Shanker Shukla & Anr v. Madhukar Shukla & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 907
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-13
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 99 of 2010
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-shanker-shukla-anr-v-madhukar-shukla-ors-54220
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

2 All. Ram Shanker Shukla & Anr. Vs. Madhukar Shukla & Ors.
907

12. The contemnor appeared before us and we granted him opportunity to have his say. He did
not justify his words in the least measure and said before us that he was utterly distressed on the
day when the unfortunate incident had happened for his own reasons. We had the occasion to watch
the contemnor's demeanour in Court as he addressed us. We are convinced that he is a wellgroomed member of the Bar, aware of the niceties of the law and etiquette in Court. Therefore, the
words that he spoke in Court and landed himself in contempt proceedings, do seem to be the result
of something extraneous, that affected his conduct in Court, which is not this way when he
generally appears. He has put in long years of practice and there is nothing to show that he has
indulged in contumacious conduct in the past. He has tendered unconditional apology at the
earliest, which the learned Civil Judge accepted, of course, for himself. The learned Civil Judge has
also remarked that he found the apology to be the expression of remorse, which led him to accept
it. We are convinced that it was an expression of genuine remorse and not merely a contrivance to
escape the consequences of contempt.

13. At one stage of proceedings, when we thought of accepting the apology at the hearing of
this application, Mr. Mehrotra, appearing for the High Court, had some words of caution for us as
he said that commission of criminal contempt of Court has become the order of the day. It was his
caution that made us reserve opinion and we have carefully considered whatever Mr. Mehrotra had
to say in the matter. We must remark that Mr. Mehrotra's words were certainly not misplaced and
had lots of wisdom to them. Though, we do not take judicial notice because that would have
consequences, but we do pay judicial attention, as it must be, to the fact that instances of criminal
contempt galore on the social media in the name of freedom of expression, which cross the line.
There are virtual abuses on media hurled at superior Courts, which are, by no means, within the
fold of the defence, called fair comment or the informed criticism of a judgment. This is not the
subject matter of the present contempt reference, but we do wish to remind the public to be
cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the
social media, which, as and when, taken cognizance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose
the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the Court may not hesitate to impose.

14. So far as the present contempt matter is concerned, we accept the contemnor's apology and
discharge the notice issued to him.

15. This contempt matter is consigned to record.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2026
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 99 of 2010

Ram Shanker Shukla & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
Madhukar Shukla & Ors. ...Opposite Parties
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for consideration
Contempt if Counsel give an undertaking on its own without client's instructions.

Headnotes
Contempt of Court - Statement of counsel before Appellate Court-The counsel for the respondent no.
1 -made statement that the appellant does not intend to sell any property nor is going to sell the samenothing on record that the counsel was instructed by respondent no. 1 to give any undertaking before the
Appellate Court-counsel have stated before the Appellate Court on his own -lawyers should follow the client's
instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client- Case of respondent no. 1 squarely
covered by Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society -no contempt is made out. Application dismissed. (E9)

Case Law Cited
Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 373

List of Acts
Nil

List of Keywords
Client's instructions

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Srivastava, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Anand Dubey, Anurag Dixit, Bhupendra
Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pritish Kumar, Indrapal Singh, N.L.Pandey, Pt. S. Chandra,
R.S.Tripathi, S.N. Tilhari, Vivek Sarswal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Present contempt application has been preferred against alleged non-compliance of the
judgment and order dated 02.09.2009 passed in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2009. The relevant paras
of the said judgment and order are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

" We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the
matter to the learned Single Judge for being decided afresh, after afforing opportunity to the
appellant, namely, opposite party no. 2 in the writ petition, in respect of the injunction being
granted to the respondents.

So far the direction for deciding the recall application is concerned, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the same, as both the parties agree that the application may be directed to
be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

We expect that the application shall be decided within the time provided by the learned
Single Judge.

At this juncture the counsel for the appellant says that the appellant does not intend to
sell any property nor is going to sell the same."
2 All. Ram Shanker Shukla & Anr. Vs. Madhukar Shukla & Ors.
909

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the undertaking given by
respondent no. 1 before the appellate court, he has executed the sale deeds on 23.12.2009 and
24.12.2009 during the pendency of the writ petition.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 after giving an undertaking before the
Appellate Court was not supposed to execute the sale deed dated 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 in the
light of the interim order dated 27.07.2009 passed in the Writ Petition. The relevant para of the said
interim order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Till disposal of the aforesaid application, the parties shall not change the nature of
property in dispute"

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that neither any
undertaking has been given nor the respondent no. 1 had instructed his counsel to make any
statement on his behalf before the Appellate Court hence, it could not be said that the statement
made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 in the appeal, where the respondent no. 1 was
appellant, was not an undertaking and in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing
Society Vs. Balwan Singh and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 373.

6. It is further submitted that the writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn by the
petitioner, who is the applicant herein on 11.01.2010.

7. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 while submitting his reply to the charge has
specifically mentioned in the affidavit that the statement given by his counsel is not in his
knowledge, otherwise, he would not have sold the property and if the affidavit is read in totality
then it has come out that he has not given any instruction to his counsel for making any such
statement before the Appellate Court.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is
found that before the Appellate Court, the counsel for the appellant i.e. respondent no. 1 herein
"says that". There is nothing on record that the counsel was instructed by the respondent no. 1 to
give any undertaking before the Appellate Court. It is the counsel who seems to have stated before
the Appellate Court on his own. The relevant paras of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"21. If for any reason, the writ court perceived the oral request made by the respondents
to have justified the ends of justice and desired to accept the concession so made by the counsel for
the appellant Society, the said request not being the subject-matter of the writ petition required the
Court to query whether the counsel for the appellant Society has been authorised to make such a
statement by the appellant Society or whether any such resolution has been passed by the appellant
Society giving concession in matters of this nature. Since the required caution was not exercised by
the learned Judges of the writ court, the directions issued by the writ court suffer from infirmity
and hence require to be set aside.
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Apart from the above, in our view lawyers are perceived to be their client's agents.
The law of agency may not strictly apply to the client-lawyer's relationship as lawyers or agents,
lawyers have certain authority and certain duties. Because lawyers are also fiduciaries, their duties
will sometimes be more demanding than those imposed on other agents. The authority-agency
status affords the lawyers to act for the client on the subject-matter of the retainer. One of the most
basic principles of the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their
clients. As part of those duties, lawyers assume all the traditional duties that agents owe to their
principals and, thus, have to respect the client's autonomy to make decisions at a minimum, as to
the objectives of the representation. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional
responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment
for that of the client. The law is now well settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorised to
settle and compromise a claim, that merely on the basis of his employment he has no implied or
ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise/settlement. To put it alternatively that a
lawyer by virtue of retention, has the authority to choose the means for achieving the client's legal
goal, while the client has the right to decide on what the goal will be. If the decision in question
falls within those that clearly belong to the client, the lawyer's conduct in failing to consult the
client or in making the decision for the client, is more likely to constitute ineffective assistance of
counsel.

31. Therefore, it is the solemn duty of an advocate not to transgress the authority
conferred on him by the client. It is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or
his authorised agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the
rightful legal right of the client. The advocate represents the client before the court and conducts
proceedings on behalf of the client. He is the only link between the court and the client. Therefore
his responsibility is onerous. He is expected to follow the instructions of his client rather than
substitute his judgment."

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the said statement/undertaking
given by the counsel for the respondent no. 1 before the Appellate Court must be read with interim
order dated 27.7.2009 passed in the Writ Petition and the conjoint reading of those would
demonstrate that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 before the
Appellate Court amounts to undertaking, the said submission of learned counsel for the applicant is
not tenable for the reason that the Appellate Court had set aside the interim order dated 27.07.2009
while remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge, so it can not be read alongwith the same.

10. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himalayan Coop. Group
Housing Society (supra), which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1
that the lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that
of the client and it is always better to seek appropriate instructions from the client or his authorized
agent before making any concession which may, directly or remotely, affect the rightful legal right
of the client, which it appears not the case in the present proceedings.

11. The case of the respondent no. 1 is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society (supra). Further the applicant within
few months after passing the order in the Special Appeal had withdrawn the writ petition on
2 All. Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
911
11.1.2010. During the period of withdrawal of the writ petition and special appeal, there existed no
interim order.

12. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, no contempt is made
out against the respondent no. 1, thus, present contempt application is hereby dismissed.

13. Charge framed against the respondent no. 1 is hereby withdrawn.

14. Notice issued, if any, stands discharged.

----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 911
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2016

Ajay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter relates to conviction only on the basis of theory of last seen.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 8, 101, 106 and 114 -Murder -
Circumstantial evidence - Motive and theory of last seen together - Prosecution case based purely on
circumstantial evidence - factum of discovery of dead bodies and homicidal death of the deceased stood
proved- the fact of marriage could not be proved -evidence relating to "last seen together" was "not
proximate" and the factum of having seen the deceased in the company of the accused/appellant was
"seriously doubtful" - Held, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is "not a panacea for the defect in proving the
case" -if the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances in the first place, the accused's
failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 becomes irrelevant -no other corroborative evidence against
the accused/appellant - conviction only on the basis of last seen together could not be sustained -
accused/appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt; impugned judgment reversed and set aside; Appeal
allowed.(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Arjun Marik Vs State of Bihar, reported in 1994 Supp(2) SCC 372;
2. Krishnan alias Ramaswamy and Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715;
3. Kanahiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715;
4. Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
5. Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1454
6. Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, reported in AIR 1956 SC 404
7. Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 373
8. Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725