Question

In which case, where the advocate of one of the parties was asking for continuous adjournments to the immense inconvenience of the opposite party, it was held by the Supreme Court that seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who were present without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of the duty that an advocate owed to the Court, amounting to misconduct.

• A. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde
• B. Sambhu Ram Yadav v.Hanuman Das Khatry
• C. Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali
• D. None of the above

Hint:

An advocate's duties are not just to the client, but also to the court, the opponent, and the profession. Assisting in the prompt and efficient disposal of cases is a key duty to the court.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The quickest approach is to match the described conduct, seeking adjournments despite witnesses being present and ready, to the case actually built around that scenario.

1. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde: This is the case where the Supreme Court held that seeking adjournments to postpone examining witnesses who are present, without arranging any alternative for their examination, breaches the advocate's duty to the court and amounts to misconduct. This is a direct match.
2. Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry: Concerns proposing a bribe to a judge, unrelated to adjournments.
3. Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali: Establishes the general definition of misconduct but is not the source of this adjournment-specific ruling.
4. None of the above: Excluded because the first option matches exactly.

Matching the fact pattern to its source, the correct answer is N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde.

Answer 2

Another way to confirm this is to focus on the duty the Court emphasized, an advocate's duty to the court itself as distinct from the duty to the client, and see which case builds its reasoning on that duty in this specific context.

1. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde: The Court's reasoning here centres on the advocate's duty to the court to assist in the speedy and efficient conduct of proceedings, and holds that seeking adjournments purely to inconvenience the opposite side, while witnesses stand ready, betrays that duty and constitutes misconduct.
2. Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry: The reasoning there concerns the advocate's duty of honesty toward the judicial process by not attempting to corrupt a judge, a different duty entirely.
3. Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali: The reasoning there is about defining the outer boundary of what conduct counts as disgraceful, not about the duty to avoid delaying tactics.
4. None of the above: Not applicable since the first case directly addresses this duty and fact pattern.

Since the duty to the court against dilatory tactics is the specific holding in the first case, the correct answer is N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shinde.