NEW DELHI: A law firm representing fugitive businessman and liquor baron Vijay Mallya for over two decades has approached the Delhi high court seeking to withdraw from a 2004 case, citing lack of any instructions from him.The prosecuting agency, in this case the Enforcement Directorate has however, cited high court and Bar Council rules governing discharge of a lawyer/law firm to insist that Mallya be first intimated about the decision by his lawyer/firm and only then the vakalatnama be permitted to be withdrawn.Faced with such a curious logjam, the HC earlier this week asked the lawyer representing Mallya to examine the Bar Council rules and comply.In an application filed July 08th, the law firm Khaitan & Co through its lawyer informed the court that the case relates to 204 FEMA proceedings where ED challenged relief granted to Mallya and his company United Breweries Ltd.The plea seeking discharge filed before justice V K Yadav says that since 2009, the ED appeal was listed on several dates, on which dates court notice was issued to the parties.While United Breweries Limited has since 2021 been acquired by Heineken International, the plea says Mallya has not come forward to give instructions.“It is most respectfully submitted that due to long passage of time between the year 2009 and 2025, the Counsel on record for Respondent No. 2 (Mallya) did not have any occasion to seek instructions on this Appeal from him….that in so far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, as per information available in public domain he is presently residing in the United Kingdom and the Appellant (ED) is aware of this and in fact prosecuting him in other unrelated cases,” the law firm has contended, seeking permission to advocate on record to withdraw their vakalatnama on behalf of Mallya in the present proceedings, and discharge it from appearing on him behalf.The application emphasizes that in view of these peculiar circumstances, the advocate cannot be compelled to represent somebody who is not coming forward to give instructions, more so when such a move won’t impede or prejudice the continuation of the ED appeal.Representing the probe agency, its counsel Annirudh Sharma submitted that if the discharge plea is allowed without Mallya being informed, the onus may later come on ED to serve summons. He argued if HC continues hearing the appeal without Mallya being represented, the fugitive may later claim an adverse order was passed without hearing him – setting a bad precedent in such economic offences and impacting the fate of other similar cases.Sharma also highlighted Delhi high court rules, chapter 5 that require notice of discharge to a client.“An Advocate in a suit or matter desiring to obtain an order for his discharge, shall first serve notice of his intended application for discharge to his client, and the fact of such notice having been served shall be stated in the application…Provided that an Advocate may be discharged by consent of the Advocate and the party by a letter addressed to the Registrar and signed both by the Advocate and the party,” Sharma noted, arguing that Mallya’s lawyer needs to first fulfill these requirement before seeking discharge.Listing the matter for next month to dispose of the plea, justice Yadav directed that “in the meantime, counsel for the Respondent No. 2 shall have the liberty to take requisite steps if any in compliance of the relevant rules on the subject by Bar Council or any other statutory body or Rules.”
