Substituted counsel appearance permitted where earlier advocate's consent was absent, applying Bar Council rules and judicial discretion.

Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India Rules requires a new advocate to obtain the earlier advocate's consent, or seek the tribunal's permission with reasons, before appearing in a pending matter. The fee dispute between the appellants and their former counsel was left unresolved as a separate issue between them and was not decided by the tribunal. In view of the substantial duty and penalty involved in the appeal, the tribunal exercised its discretion in the interests of justice and permitted substituted counsel to appear for the appellants in place of the previous counsel.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission should be granted for the new counsel to appear in place of the earlier counsel in the pending appeal.

Analysis: Rule 39 of the Bar Council of India Rules, framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, requires an advocate to obtain the consent of the earlier advocate already on record, or else seek the Court's permission with reasons. The dispute regarding outstanding fees between the appellants and their former counsel was treated as a matter to be worked out between them and was not adjudicated by the Tribunal. Considering the large duty and penalty involved in the appeal, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in the interests of justice and allowed the substituted counsel to appear.

Conclusion: Permission was granted for Shri C.P. Vig and Shri Sukumar Mukhopadhyay to appear for the appellants instead of the previous counsel.

---