Division Bench reiterates advocate's duty of full disclosure, rejects plea blaming clients and juniors for non-disclosure, and emphasizes professionalism in legal practice
In a significant ruling dated August 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court Division Bench, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record in his personal capacity. The petition sought to challenge portions of a previous judgment that found a pattern of wilful suppression of documents by the respondent's counsel and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs for the same. The court reaffirmed the high standards expected from advocates as officers of the court and emphasized their duty to ensure full and correct disclosure of material facts and documents.
The review petition arose from a civil commercial dispute between Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. The counsel on record for the respondent filed the petition challenging the findings in paragraphs 45 to 53 and the cost imposition in paragraph 56 of the impugned judgment dated August 20, 2026. The counsel contended that certain documents, including a legal notice and trademark objections, were not disclosed due to lack of information from the client and junior colleagues and that the court's reliance on findings from other cases was misplaced.
The court scrutinized these contentions and observed that the documents in question were filed as part of the plaint's annexures, making it incumbent upon the filing counsel to verify and disclose them. The court referred extensively to binding Supreme Court precedents, including Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and Jitender @ Kalla v. State of GNCTD (2025), underscoring that advocates, especially filing counsel, bear personal responsibility to ensure the accuracy and completeness of pleadings and documents filed. The court stated that blaming clients or junior advocates cannot absolve the counsel from this duty.
Further, the court held that the review petition improperly sought to re-agitate findings on merits that are outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction, which is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Division Bench also rejected the counsel's attempt to equate the suppression with inadvertence by drawing parallels to unrelated judgments, clarifying that wilful suppression in the present case was distinct and serious enough to warrant the costs imposed.
The court expressed disappointment over the counsel's failure to acknowledge his professional responsibility and reiterated that non-disclosure of material facts undermines the judicial process and cannot be condoned. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and the cost order against the respondent upheld.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that advocates must maintain the highest standards of honesty and diligence as officers of the court, ensuring full disclosure to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings. It also serves as a stern reminder that costs and other consequences will be imposed for wilful suppression of documents.
Bottom Line:
Advocate's duty as an officer of the court includes ensuring full disclosure of material facts and documents during filing, and failure to fulfill this duty cannot be excused by blaming clients or junior colleagues.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provisions relating to pleadings and interim relief, Supreme Court Rules regarding Advocates' duties, judicial principles governing review petitions as per Civil Procedure Code and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
