Disowning counsel instructions failed where signed appeal papers and vakalatnama showed authorised filing, and misconduct was unproven.

The tribunal found that the appellant could not disown the appeal or later allege that counsel acted without instructions, because the memorandum of appeal, supporting affidavits and vakalatnama bore the appellant's signature and there was no contemporaneous complaint or reliable material. The denial of instructions was treated as vague and unsupported, while no professional misconduct by the advocates was established. The allegation was viewed as an attempt to falsely implicate counsel after the appeal had already been dismissed for failure to cure defects under Rule 26(3) and Rule 26(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016. The challenge to the dismissal order was rejected and the dismissal was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could disown the filing of the appeal and sustain allegations that the counsels had acted without instructions and with misconduct, so as to disturb the earlier dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance under the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The records showed the appellant's signature on the memorandum of appeal and supporting affidavits, along with a vakalatnama in favour of counsel. The subsequent denial of instruction was found to be vague and unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or reliable material. The tribunal accepted the explanation that the appeal had been filed through counsel engaged by the appellant and that no professional misconduct was established against the counsels. The allegations were viewed as an attempt to falsely implicate the advocates after the appeal had already been dismissed for failure to cure defects under Rule 26(3) and Rule 26(4) of the NCLAT Rules, 2016.

Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal order was rejected, the allegations against the counsels were disbelieved, and the dismissal of the appeal was affirmed.

---