IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2011 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010 M/S. MARPOL PRIVATE LTD AND 22 ORS., ... Applicants Versus MR. SHAMBHU A. PAI PANANDIKER ... Respondent Mr. V. R. Tamba and Mr. D. D. Zaveri, Advocates for the applicants. Ms. J. John, Advocate for Original respondent No.1 in Company Appeal No.3/2010 Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH, J. Date:- 4th February, 2011 P.C.:- Before adverting to this application, it is necessary to record some dates and events, as below : (A) Company Appeal No.3/2010 was filed by the appellants on 18.11.2010. (B) Company Appeal No.3/2010 was before this Court on 25th November, 2010. I have seen the order passed in the appeal, on that day. It records "Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties". Controversy of representation of respondent No.1 Company was noticed by this Court and recorded in that order. On that day, Advocate Mr. Diniz presented V.P. Ms. J. John, learned Advocate was present on that day. Submission of Mr. Diniz that he represented respondent No.1 Company was recorded by this Court. Mr. Diniz on that day presented V.P. on behalf of respondent No.1. This V.P. was seen by the Court on that day. However, Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel, who is now appearing for the applicants in this application, points out that this Court has already accepted V.P. of Mr. Dinizi for respondent No.1. It is true that this Court has observed in the order dated 25th November, 2011 that Mr. Diniz presented V.P. on behalf of respondent No.1-Company. Mr. Diniz submitted that the V.P. has been signed by the person who claims to be the Chairman/Managing Director of the company. It is recorded in the order that the V.P. was accepted. It is also recorded in the said order that the V.P. was returned to the Advocate for due compliance. On that day, the grievance of Advocate Mr. Diniz that he had not received copy of the company appeal, was also recorded by this Court. On that day itself Advocate Mr. Diniz made a statement "he has now received the entire additional Company Appeal and Compilation". The statement was recorded and the matter was adjourned to 2nd December, 2010. 2. Turning to the present misc. application i.e. Company Application No.5/2011, V.P. of Advocate Mr. V.R. Tamba with Advocate Mr. D. D. Zaveri was filed along with the misc. application. The said V.P. was accepted on 21.1.2011. 3. Order dated 2.12.2010 passed by this Court in Company Appeal No.3/2010 and more specifically in paragraph 2, records the submission made by Advocate Mr. Diniz pertaining to the earlier order passed by this Court on 25th November, 2010. On 16th December, 2010, the company appeal was before this Court and it was adjourned to 20th January, 2011. In the meantime, Mr. Diniz filed an application, seeking withdrawal of his appearance and that is how the matter was placed on Board on 14.1.2011. Order dated 14th January, 2011 is also seen by me. By that order, appearance of Mr. Diniz on behalf of respondent No.1 was discharged and the hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 20th January, 2011. Para 7 of the order dated 14th January, 2011 records that since Advocate Mr. Diniz has been discharged, Registrar (Judicial) shall not act upon the directions given by this Court in its earlier order dated 16.12.2010. 4. The whole controversy is in respect of representation of respondent No.1 in Company Appeal No. 3/2010 and Company Application No.5/2011. By the present application,i.e. Company Application No.5/2011, Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel seeks recall of the order passed by this Court on 14th January, 2011 and/or modification of the said order. In prayer clause (b) of the application, a prayer is made by the applicants that V.P. of Advocate Mr. Tamba be directed to be accepted and taken on record and in the alternate, the applicants pray that the Registry be directed to hold an inquiry as per order dated 16th December, 2010. 5. It is the contention of Shri Tamba on behalf of the applicants that the V.P. of Advocate A.F. Diniz was accepted by this Court. Mr. Diniz moved this Court for discharge on personal grounds, however, he did not comply with Rule 8, sub-Rule (4) of Chapter XXXII of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 ("the Rules" for short). Schedule VII thereof refers to the Rules framed by the High Court under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Pointing out Rule 8(4) of the Rules, Mr. Tamba contended that Mr. Diniz did not serve notice of 7 days contemplated and that is how the order of discharge passed by this Court, according him, is against the scope of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 of the Rules. On this ground, he seeks the reliefs prayed for in this company application. 6. Advocate Ms. Jimy John is present before the Court. I have seen her V.P. also, which is dated 22.11.2010 and presented before the Registry on 24.11.2010, filed in Company Appeal No.3/2010. She points out Rule 8 of Chapter IV of the Rules. This, Rule 8, according to her, provides that consent of Advocate on record is necessary before another Advocate files appearance. According to her, this Rule does not permit an Advocate to file his appearance unless a consent of earlier Advocate is obtained. Such a consent, according to her, should be a written consent of the Advocate on record. 7. Representation by an Advocate of the litigant/client is, in fact, a contract amongst the Advocate and the litigant/client. The Act in this respect concerned, is the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the High Courts to make rules. Accordingly, Rules under Schedule VII of Chapter XXXII of the Rules, have been framed by this Court. 8. In the case on hand, V.P. dated 22.11.2010 of Advocate Ms. J. John was presented before the Registry on 24.11.2010. Filing of subsequent V.P., may be in the given circumstances. Earlier Advocate on record, if seeks discharge and such a discharge is permitted by the Court, the party or the litigant may engage another lawyer. However, the Advocate who is already on record if to be changed by the party, the party may take out appropriate proceeding and seek leave or order from the Court. The subsequent Advocate if presents V.P. for the same client, it should be in consonance with Chapter IV, Rule 8 and Chapter XXXII, Rule 8(4) of the Rules. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that there was a collusion between the appellant and respondent No.4 which led to filing of V.P. by Advocate Ms. J. John on behalf of respondent No.1, without authority of law. I do not wish to go into this controversy. I only factually recorded that V.P. of Advocate Ms. J. John was on record for respondent No.1-Company (applicants in this company application). In prior in time to acceptance of V.P.of Advocate Mr. Diniz before this Court, in my opinion, even Advocate Mr. Diniz would not have sought discharge. The said V.P. would have remained in breach of Rule 8 of Chapter IV of the Rules, since V.P. of Advocate Mr. Diniz was not presented before this Court after obtaining no objection from the Advocate on record i.e. Advocate Ms. J. John. 10. At one point of time, as reflected from the orders, Registrar (Judicial) of this Court was directed to hold an inquiry. It is also stated across the Bar by learned Counsel Ms. J. John that such an inquiry has been conducted by the Registrar (Judicial) and only the report of the Registrar (Judicial) was to be submitted. This submission is made by Advocate Ms. J. John and therefore, it is being recorded in this order. 11. In my view, the present company application cannot be allowed either in terms of prayer clause (a) or (b). The V.P. of Advocate Ms. J. John for respondent No.1 in Company Appeal No.3/2010 is already on record. It is the choice of respondent No.1 to go for any other Advocate or to continue with Advocate Ms. J. John. 12. In view of above, the company application, stands rejected. At this stage, Mr. Tamba states that remedy of the applicants-Company to be represented by any Advocate before some other forum, if necessitates, be left open. It is made clear that this entire order pertains to filing of V.P. on behalf of respondent No.1 Company in Company Appeal No.3/2010 alone and not any other proceedings. Authenticated copies of this order be issued to all the parties on their request and as per usual practice. S.B. DESHMUKH, J. ssm.