In Manasmita Maharana v. State of Odisha, DB bench holds that concessions on legal propositions by counsel are not binding if against statutory provisions, while concessions on facts require client instruction to bind litigants
The Orissa High Court, in a recent judgment dated August 24, 2026, in the case of Manasmita Maharana v. State of Odisha, delivered a significant ruling clarifying the legal effect of concessions made by counsel during court proceedings. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash addressed the nuanced distinction between concessions on facts and law made by advocates, emphasizing the binding nature of the former only when supported by client instructions, and declaring that concessions on law cannot override statutory provisions.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Manasmita Maharana challenging a government order denying her claim for payment of salary instead of a stipend during her training period as an Assistant Conservator of Forest under the Odisha Forest Service Group-A (Junior Branch). The petitioner's claim was grounded in an amendment to the Odisha Forest Service Rules, 2013, which altered the payment structure during the training period from stipend to salary.
At the hearing of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner allegedly made a concession to abandon the claim related to seniority, restricting the relief to payment of salary instead of stipend. The Single Bench accepted this concession and disposed of the petition accordingly. However, the petitioner later contended that no such concession on seniority was authorized by her and sought modification of the order to include seniority benefits. The Single Bench rejected this application, prompting the appeal before the Division Bench.
The High Court thoroughly analyzed precedents from the Supreme Court, including landmark rulings in Union of India v. Subit Kumar Das (2025 SCC Online SC 2243), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola (2019) 13 SCC 82, and others, to elucidate the principle that concessions on propositions of law made by counsel are not binding if they contradict statutory rules or legal provisions. The Court observed that the applicability and efficacy of law cannot be determined by a counsel's concession and that such concessions are regarded as "no concession in the eye of law."
Conversely, the Court recognized that concessions on facts could bind the litigant only if made with client instructions. Where a counsel makes a unilateral concession on factual issues without client authorization, the Court can consider expunging such concessions to prevent prejudice to the litigant.
Importantly, the Court underscored the sanctity of the judicial record, holding that the recording of events, including concessions, by a judge during proceedings is sacrosanct and cannot be casually contradicted through affidavits. Any grievance regarding wrongful recording must be promptly addressed before the same Court.
Applying these principles, the Division Bench found no error in the Single Bench's recording of the concession made by the counsel in the present case and declined to interfere with the order. The Court held that the appellant had successfully obtained the primary relief of salary payment as per the amended rules and that abandonment of ancillary claims like seniority by counsel was within judicial discipline and procedural law, specifically citing Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding abandonment of claims.
The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing the precedent that litigants cannot easily repudiate concessions made by their counsel during court hearings, particularly where such concessions do not conflict with statutory law.
This ruling provides vital clarity to litigants and legal practitioners on the binding nature of counsel's concessions, emphasizing the need for clear client instructions and vigilance in court proceedings to avoid unintended relinquishment of claims.
Bottom Line:
Concession made by a counsel on a proposition of law is not binding on the litigant, especially if it contradicts statutory provisions or lacks client instructions. However, the recording of events in the court by a judge is sacrosanct and cannot be easily contradicted.
Statutory provision(s):
Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Manasmita Maharana v. State of Odisha, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971315
