50 Casesdocx KKKK

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
50 cases.docx - kkkk
Business administration (ICFAI Business School)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|20962035
A. Dereliction of Duty
Dereliction of Duty means handing over brief to another advocate and such transfer is considered as unprofessional but
if he does so with the consent of his client, it is not improper.
1. Case: V.C Ranga Durai v. D Gopalan

Case no.: Civil appeal no. 839 of 1978.
Petitioner: V.C.Rangadurai
Respondent: D Gopalan
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R Desai, A.P. (J) D.a Sen
Act-section 38 of advocates act, 196, Professional ethics of a member of legal fraternity
Citations- AIR 1979 SC 281, 1979 SCR (1)1054, 1979 SCC (1) 308
Facts- The appellant was found guilty of gross professional misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee II of the State Bar
Council, Tamil Nadu and was therefore, debarred from practice as an Advocate for a period of six years. Here the
appellant not only accepted the brief(bribe), pocketed the money meant for court fees, and never filed the suits but in a
frantic effort to save himself, he threw the entire blame on his junior. The appellant completely betrayed the trust
reposed in him by the complainants in this case.
Issue- Should the appellant be given a strict punishment as the DC II found the appellant to be guilty of professional
misconduct?
Blaming his junior was a breach of integrity and a lack of probity for a lawyer to wrongfully with hold the money of his
client and there was in this case complete lack of candour on the part of the appellant. Punishment has a functional
duality-deterrence and correction. But conventional penalties have their punitive limitations and flaws. A therapeutic
touch, a correctional twist, and a locus poenitentiae, may have rehabilitative impact if only Courts may experiment
unorthodoxly but within the parameters of the law. The court held that “even so justice has a correctional edge, a
socially useful function, especially if the delinquent is too old to be pardoned and too young to be disbarred. Therefore,
a curative, not cruel punishment has to be delivered in the social setting of the legal profession”.
Judgement- The Supreme Court in this case held that the appellant is guilty of gross professional misconduct and
deserves condign punishment. In appeal to the Bar Council of India, it upheld the said findings but reduced the period of
suspension to one year. The Court directed:
(i) the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the victim of the misconduct and produce a receipt.
(ii) accept the suspension from practice upto 14th August 1979 and willingness to undertake work under any
legal aid body in Tamil Nadu and convince the Chairman of that Board to accept his services in any
specific place where currently there is an on going project and
(iii) do only free legal and for one year as reasonably directed by the Board (and shall not during that period
accept any private engagement) so that the period of suspension shall stand terminated with effect from
January 26, 1979.
The court looked into the matter of professional misconduct in such a way that the decision was made in a
humanitarian manner, considering the future of the accused in this case and also provided a warning towards such
other people who intend to commit acts of a similar nature.
2. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shind.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 3543 of 2001
Petitioner: N.G Dastane
Respondent: Shrikant S. Shivde And Anr.
Bench: Justice K.T. Thomas, Justice R.P. Sethi & Justice S.N. Phukan
Act-
Citations- AIR 2001 SC 2028

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Facts- The two respondent-advocates filed a joint Vakalatnama before the trial court and the trial began in 1993.
Appellant was examined in-chief. The agony of the appellant started when the Magistrate posted the case for
cross-examination of the appellant on 30.7.1993. The appellant had come down from New York for being
cross-examined on that day, but the second respondent advocate sought for an adjournment on the ground that it was
not possible to conduct the cross-examination unless all the other witnesses for the prosecution were also present in
court. Then on the next date appellant and all his witnesses were present in court. But both the respondents sought for
an adjournment, the first respondent on the premise that he was busy outside the court, and the second respondent on
the premise that the father of the first respondent’s friend expired. This went on till 4.12. 1993 where the court kept on
giving dates as the advocates kept on giving baseless & flippant reasons for adjournment. aWhen State Bar
Council and Bar Council of India rejected his appeal and closed their doors. The exasperated witness then comes before
Supreme Court.
Issue- Are the advocates guilty of continuously asking for adjournments only to cause immense inconvenience of the
opposite party or was it all required?
When witnesses are present in Court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is
conducted. The witnesses who are called by the Court have no choice but to be present and such witnesses are also
responsible citizens who have other work to attend for eking out livelihood. Seeking adjournments for postponing the
examination of witnesses who are present in Court even without making other arrangements for examining such
witnesses is a dereliction of advocates duty to the Court as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the
witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned.
Here both the advocates in the pursuit of his profession have done something with regard to it which was reasonably
regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency. And Thus, they
are guilty of professional misconduct.
Judgement- The Supreme Court has made it clear that seeking repeated adjournments for postponing examination of
witnesses that caused immense inconvenience of the opposite party who were present without making other
arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of the duty that an advocate owed to the Court amounts to
misconduct and both the advocates must be punished.
B. Professional Negligence
An advocate is expected to exercise reasonable skill and prudence and should not be negligent. In order t o constitute
misconduct, the negligence must be accompanied by –
● suppression of truth or
● deliberate misrepresentation of facts
3. Case: Mohd. Ismail v. Balarathna

Case no.:
Petitioner: Janab Mana Mohamed Ismail Saheb
Respondent: V. Balarathnam
Bench: M Sadasivayya, T Tukol
Act- Section 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926,
Citations- AIR 1965 Mys. 28, (1964) 1 MysLJ
Facts- The complainant had engaged the services of the respondent to apply to the High Court of Mysore for directing
the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference on a question of law arising out of an Income-tax case. The
respondent accordingly made an application for that purpose, under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, to the High
Court of Mysore. The Office of the High Court required that two spare copies of the order of the Appellate Tribunal as
also a certificate to the effect that the assessee had not withdrawn the application for reference under Section 66(1) of
the Income-tax Act, be produced. The advocate did not inform the complainant about the progress of the case nor called
upon the complainant to furnish any copies of any of the proceedings. The petition which had been filed before was

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
then dismissed on account of the failure to produce the copies. The complainant alleges that this dismissal was due to
the negligence on the part of the respondent.
Issue- Whether it amounts to misconduct if an advocate neglects to furnish requisite documents or material papers
despite of repeated adjournments?
There is negligence on the part of the respondent. What is worse, that the complainant was put off whenever he
enquired about the same by the respondent. The fact that should be taken into consideration that court had also
granted time of 6 months to furnish the requisite papers but, the requirement was not compiled. It is true that mere
negligence or error of judgment on the part of the Advocate would not amount to professional misconduct. But here the
negligence of the Advocate is gross. Having regard to what has been, we have no doubt that the `gross' and `serious'
negligence on the part of the respondent-advocate, amounts to professional misconduct.
Judgement- Therefore there cannot be any doubt that there has been a callous disregard & professional misconduct on
the part of the Respondent. Taking the fact that Shri Balarathnam frankly admitted the lapse on his part Justice will be
met by a reprimand being administered to the respondent-advocate, under S. 10(1) of the Act.
4. Case: John D Souza v Edward Ani.

Petitioner: John D Souza
Respondent: Edward Ani.
Bench: Pandian, S.R. (J) SAWANT, P.B.
Act- Section 35 of the Advocates Act
Citations- 1994. SC 975, 1994 SCC (2) 64, JT 1993 Supl. 327, 1993 SCALE (4)702
Facts- The appellant who is an Advocate was proceeded against for professional misconduct on the basis of a complaint
lodged by the respondent, Mr. Edward Ani with the Karnataka State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act
1971 alleging that the appellant with whom a Will executed by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary Raymond was entrusted for
safe custody against receipt in his register of Wills refused to return that Will in spite of two letters demanding the
appellant to hand over the Will kept in his custody and that the appellant thereby has committed professional
misconduct.
Issue- Whether the act of the advocate amounted to professional misconduct?

The advocate when asked said that will had been revoked and returned on January 13, 1982 presumably to Mrs Mary
Raymond who was then alive. That fact is supported by an endorsement made by the appellant's wife in the register of
Wills and that even assuming that the will had not been returned, the appellant cannot be said to have committed any
breach of trust by retaining the revoked will which after its revocation had become res nullius and indisputably was a
worthless paper having no value. The appellant cannot even by imagination be said to have any pecuniary profit by
keeping the revoked will which had. But the respondent has proved that the appellant had not returned the will. It has
to be remembered, in this connection, that his earlier stand was that he did not have the will. He changed the position
later and came out with the case that he had returned it in 1982. The conduct of the appellant in not returning the will
even on demand is unworthy of an advocate belonging to a noble profession.
Judgement- The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that "the complainant (the present appellant),
has succeeded in proving that the respondent committed breach of his professional duty, professional misconduct and is
hereby liable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961". The Committee further suspended the appellant herein
from practice for a period of one year.
Deliberate delay in filing of the suit
5. Case: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami v. Vishwanath D. Mukashikar,

Case no.: D.C. Appeal No. 40/1995
Petitioner: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami
Respondent: Vishwanath D. Mukashikar

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Facts- In this case the appellant advocate made a delay in filing the suit and also made a delay in moving the interim
application. The complainant gave two written notices to the appellant advocate for the return of the papers so that he
could engage separate lawyers but the appellant advocate did not respond. The advocate did this deliberately in
connivance with the other side.
Issue- Does the act of the advocate amount to professional misconduct?

The fact that advocate made delay in filing the suit and thus that resulted in the complainant suffering huge loss. The
respondent not only ignored the notices given to him but also colluded with the opposite party’s advocate which is
considered to be serious misconduct on his part. The advocate knowingly avoided the complainant which resulted in the
Krishanraj not getting the justice is deserved.
Judgement-The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found him guilty of professional
misconduct, criminal contempt of Court was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and
suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.
Manipulation of the judgement and the decree
6. Case: Surendra Nath Mittal v. Daya Nand Swaroop BCI Tr. Case No. 63/1987
Case no.: BCI Tr. 63/1987
Petitioner: Surendra Nath Mittal
Respondent: Daya Nand Swaroop
Bench: S Agarwala
Citations- AIR 1987 All 132
Facts- When the respondent advocate was hired to be representative of the complainant the advocate made
manipulation in the operative part of the judgement and decree by adding the words “mai sood” i.e including interest
which resulted in complainant suffering loss. Exasperated by the advocate’s actions the complaint was filed against the
advocate before Disciplinary committee of State Bar council of Allahabad.
Issue- Whether the advocate guilty of Professional misconduct?

The manipulation was in Violation of Rule 1 and 2 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II. The respondent when asked denied the
allegation and contended that he had not committed any offence. But the complainant successfully proved that the
respondent-advocate was guilty of Professional Misconduct.
Judgement-The disciplinary committee found the advocate guilty and held that it was the respondent advocate who had
added the words subsequently and that the same amounts to professional misconduct and ordered for his suspension
for one year.
Handing over of forged documents to the opposite party
7. Case: Pratap Narain v. Y.P. Raheja,

Case no.: BCI Tr. Case No.40/1993
Petitioner: Pratap Narain
Respondent: Y.P. Raheja
Act- section 35 of Advocates Act, 1962.
Facts- Here when the petitioner hired the respondent to represent him in Delhi Court, after the proceedings ended the
respondent handed over him a forged stay order while no stay order was passed by the court in the case. When shri
Prathap Narain discovered the sly act of the advocate, he filed complaint before Delhi bar council against Y.P. Raheja,
advocate.
Issue- Whether the act of handing over forged documents to the client amount to professional misconduct?
Mere negligence or error of Judgment on the part of the Advocate may not always amount to professional misconduct.
But here the Respondent- advocate knowingly handed over the forged stay order, when he knew that court had not

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
allowed the same. He had not only forged the order pf the court but also tried to fool his client in believing the same.
And when asked the respondent pleaded that the forged stay order was handed over to the complainant by his clerk.
Judgement- The Disciplinary committee after examining the facts, evidence held that the respondent was guilty of
professional misconduct of serious nature. Consequently, the Disciplinary committee ordered removal of his name from
the roll maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi.
8. Gross negligence involving moral turpitude- In the matter of P an Advocate and

Petitioner: P-advocate
Respondent: unknown
Bench: B S Shah, K Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah, P Gajendragadkar
Act- Section 10 in The Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926
Citations- AIR 1963. SC 1313, 1963 CriLJ 341, 1964 1 SCR 697
Facts- Mr. P., who is an advocate-on-record acted for the Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath for Civil Appeal
No. 232/1954. The Advocate had briefed Mr. J. as a senior Advocate to lead him at the hearing of the appeal. It appears
that the client had paid the Advocate Rs. 500/- on the eve of the hearing of the appeal and the senior Advocate was paid
Rs. 1,000/- The Bill of Costs and vouchers had to be filed by the Advocate on behalf of his client within six weeks from
the date of judgment. The said period expired. Then on June, 28, 1958, he again wrote to his client about the recent
status of the case and called for Rs. 60/- foe which the Advocate passed a receipt. He, however, took no further action in
the matter until about January 9, 1959, when it appears that he inspected the Court records in order to be able to
prepare a defeat bill.
Issue- whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the conduct of the Advocate amounts to professional
misconduct?
It is obvious that in filing the bill of costs the Advocate was guilty of gross delay. He knew that the bill of costs had to be
filed within six weeks from the date of judgment and for the same it was unnecessary to obtain any instructions from
the client. If the Advocate had kept proper accounts, he would have been able to file the bill of costs without any delay.
The senior counsel was paid Rs. 1000/- which is not consistent with professional etiquette of a counsel. It is, however,
clear that the Advocate could have obtained a receipt from the senior counsel without any delay. In fact, the senior
counsel had already sent a receipt to his client and if the Advocate had approached him for another receipt in that
behalf, he would have received it. Therefore, the delay was made knowingly and this negligence is a serious one. When
asked the explanation given by the Advocate was found to be clearly fantastic and untrue.
Judgement- The learned Judge condoned the delay made in the presentation of the bill of costs without prejudice and
ordered that the Advocate be removed from the rolls for five years for the gross negligence shown by him in the conduct
of the proceedings in this case. The court also directed the Advocate to pay the respondent's costs of the enquiry before
the Tribunal.
9. VP Kumaravelu v the Bar council of India.

Petitioner: VP Kumaravelu
Respondent: The Bar council of India. New Delhi and Ors.
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, Sujata V. Manohar
Act- Section 36B (1) in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Citations- AIR 1997 SC 1014.
Facts- This suit had been filed by the Travancore Textiles Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Tamil Nadu relating to a lease of
land admeasuring 1240 sq.ft. The plaintiff had prayed for a refund of Rs.25,575.40 with interest at the rate 12% p.a. as
the Municipal taxes levied were illegal and Also for a further declaration that he need not pay any rent after 30.6.1974.
But representative of Government was not present during the proceedings. The appellant contended that since the
office staff had not put up the papers of this case before him, it was through inadvertence that the suit was decreed ex
parte. But as a result of the gross negligence on the part of the appellant the Government of Tamil Nadu the
complainant alleged they had suffered substantial loss.
Issue- Will his negligence or "constructive negligence" as the respondent-Bar Council puts it, amount to professional
misconduct?

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
The Bar Council of India has noted that appellant must have known about the pendency of the case, and the serious
consequences that would follow if the order for payment of costs were not complied with. This lapse of the appellant
cannot raise the plea that the staff was negligent. Such mistake happened again in the suit of No.17 of 1984 which
resulted in order passed against his client. This Conduct amounts to dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client
and towards his case would also amount to professional misconduct.
Judgement- The appellant negligence was not deliberate. However, the appellant cannot shift the blame entirely on his
staff. It is his responsibility to make sure that the staff performs its functions properly and diligently. Thus, appellant has
been held guilty of negligence. However, in the absence of any moral turpitude we cannot condone his conduct in these
circumstances would amount to professional misconduct. Therefore, the appellant has been held guilty of "constructive
negligence and the Bar Council of India has reprimanded him.
10. Breach of trust- Bapurao Pakhiddey v Suman Dondey.

Petitioner: Bapurao Pakhiddey
Respondent: Suman Dondey.
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu. Justice D.P. Mohapatra
Act- Section 35 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Citations- AIR 1999 SC 916, JT 1999 (1) SC 273, (1999) IIMLJ 45 SC.
Facts- A complaint was lodged by Smt. Suman Dondey to the Bar Council of Delhi against the appellant alleging that in
the year 1978-79 he had received certain monies but he did not account for the same but had used the same for his
private ends. The appellant raised an objection to cthe complaint against him is not maintainable under Section 35 of
the Advocates Act as there is no nexus between the profession as an Advocate and his activities as a treasurer of a
society.
Issue- Was he negiliegent as advocate in performing his duties?
The court after seeing the ledger noticing the adjustments had been laid in the course of the accounts even subsequent
to March 31,1978 and those account books were not made available at the time to the Bar Council of India it is beyond
our comprehension as to how the Bar Council of India would have drawn an inference that the appellant had not
accounted for the monies received by him particularly when the charge against the appellant is one of not accounting
for the monies received by him.
Judgement- It was later found that when the only charge against the appellant was one of non-accounting of the monies
received by him from the Society, the Bar Council of India should not have proceeded to decide the matter in the
absence of clinching evidence against him that he had misappropriated the same. Therefore, we are satisfied on the
perusal with reference to the account extracts that the appellant is not guilty of the charge labelled against him. Hence,
Supreme Court set aside the order made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and exonerated him
of the charges.
C. Misappropriation
When an advocate collects money from his clients for court purposes and misuses it is called as nmisappropriation which
amounts to professional misconduct.
11. Bribe- Purushottam Eknath Nemade v DN Mahajun

Petitioner: Purushottam Eknath Nemade
Respondent: DN Mahajun
Bench: S R Babu, D Mohapatra
Citations- AIR 1999 SC 2142, 1999 (1) BLJR 589, (1999) 2 SCC 215.
Facts- Pramila is a daughter of the complainant. On her behalf an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure
Code was presented in the court of the Judicial Magistrate by the appellant at the instance of the complainant. The
complainant alleges that appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- to bribe Shri Kalar who was the Judicial Magistrate to
obtain a result in her favour. The Disciplinary Committee invegitated and found that Shri Kalar never handled the case in
which the complainant's daughter was an applicant. But still found him guilty. Exasperated with the decision of BCI the
Respondent filed an appeal before the SC.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Issue- Should the respondent be made guilty of professional misconduct for bribery?
If the statement of the complainant was true then Shri Kalar should have been the Presiding Officer to give an order but
he wasn’t so the question of obtaining an order from him should not arise at all. If the appellant demanded money, it
should have been with reference to the Presiding Officer. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the demand of that nature
could have been made. The whole foundation of the case is based upon this slender material which is a vague statement
made by the complainant.
Judgement- The Court do not think that the Disciplinary Committee was justified in coming to the conclusion that the
appellant was guilty of mis-conduct on the basis of the evidence and the material placed before it. The Supreme Court
thus set aside the order made by the Disciplinary Committee and exonerate the appellant of the said accusation.
12. Failure to attend trial after accepting the brief- SJ Choudhary v State
Case no.: Special Leave Petition No. 3000 of 1983
Petitioner: Lt. Col S. J Chaudhary
Respondent: State of Delhi (The Administration)
Bench: O. Chinnappa Reddy, E.S Venkataramiah, R.B Misra, JJ.
Act- Criminal Procedure, Duty of Advocate.
Citations- AIR 1984 SC 618, 1984 SCC (1) 722, 1984 SCALE (1)92.
Facts- Alleging that the Petitioner’s two Advocates are not prepared to appear in the case from day-to-day as the trial is
likely to be prolonged, the petitioner has filed, the present application for modification of the earlier order of this court
by the deletion of the direction that the trial should proceed from day-to-day.
Issue- Whether the trial should go on day-to day basis?

It is entirely wholesome practice for the trial to go on from day-to-day. It is must expedient that the trial before the court
of a Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. It will also result in the
elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial
proceeds from day-to-day. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial proceeds from
day-to-day.
Judgement- The court held that before commencing a trial, a Sessions Judge must
satisfy himself that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, he may postpone the case, but only for the shortest
possible period. Once the trial commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason which makes an adjournment
inevitable, proceed until the trial is concluded. It is the duty of every advocate who accepts the brief in a criminal case to
attend the trial from day-to-day. Having accepted the brief, he will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he
so fails to attend.
13. Misappropriation of amount paid- DS Dalal V State Bank of India.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No.251 of 1982
Petitioner: DS Dalal
Respondent: State Bank of India And Ors.
Bench: Justice Kuldip Singh And Justice N. M. Kasliwal
Act: Section 38 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Citations: AIR 1993 SC 1608, 1993 SCR (2) 488, 1993 SCALE (2)78.
Facts- The Bank in 1975 engaged the M/s. Singh and Company to rile a recovery suit. The Firm submitted a bill for riling
the recovery suit which included the professional fees. The Bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,475. But the firm neither inform
the Bank whether the suit was filed or not nor its progress. Even after continues letters sent to the firm by the
complainant to inquire about the status of the case, he was ignored. Infuriated with the same the complainant hired Mr.
Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what happened to the suit. Mr. Arora informed that the said suit was returned
by to the Firm with objections but was never refiled. Thus, respondent claimed before the DC that the appellant and his
associates misappropriated the money paid to them. The Bar Council of India found them guilty of professional
misconduct and had their names removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi. Aggrieved by the same
the appellant pleaded in SC, when asked about the suit the appellant contended that the suit was filed on 15.12.11975

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
but the record of the suit file was misplaced/lost by the Registry of the High Court; that by his letter dated 20.8.1977, he
informed the Bank about the same.
Issue- Whether the Advocate guilty of Misappropriation and professional misconduct?

The question rosed in Court why was the letter dated August 20, 1977 not produced, before the Bar Council of India.
Why was it placed before this Court for the first time? There is no evidence on the record to show that the suit rile was
misplaced or lost by the High Court Registry. But there is reliable evidence on the record to show that the Delhi High
Court Registry returned back the papers to Mr. B. Singh for removing the objections raised by it.
Judgement- Thus the Supreme Court held that both the reports of Mr. R.P.Arora, Advocate have been proved as
evidence. The court came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant and Mr.B.Singh was proved beyond
doubt. There is no ground to interfere with the order of the Bar Council of India.
14. JS Jadhav v Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf And Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 6120 OF 1983
Petitioner: JS Jadhav
Respondent: Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf And Ors.
Bench: Justice S. Mohan & Justice Kuldip Singh
Act- Section 38 Of Advocates Act, 1961
Citations- AIR 1993. SC 1535, 1993 SCR (2)1006, JT 1993 (2) 652.
Facts- The respondent engaged the appellant as an Advocate. The suit was compromised ordering the Court receiver
that plaintiff was to be paid a sum of Rs. 64,000 and the balance to be paid to the respondent and possession of
suit-property to be handed over to the respondent. During the tendency of the suit the Court Receiver inducted a tenant
in a suit property. The tenant filed a suit praying for an interim injunction. After the compromise decree was passed the
appellant withdrew a total amount of Rs. 50,379 from the Court receiver. Out of the amount, appellant paid only
Rs.18,000 to the respondent. Thus, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of
India. On receiving a notice, the appellant submitted reply. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council rejected
certain receipts produced as evidence and also the plea of the appellant that the account books were lost. The
Committee suspended the appellant for a period of two years and further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the
respondent. Aggrieved by this the advocate filed an appeal before this Court.
Issue- Whether the receipts be accepted as evidence and not hold the advocate guilty for professional misconduct?
Legal profession is regarded to be a noble one. It cannot be allowed to become a sorriest of trades. Therefore, an
exacting standard is what is expected of an advocate. The appellant had withdrawn the money from the Court Receiver.
None of the correspondence addressed to the
respondent mentioned about the receipt dated 8th of August, 1977. The plea taken by the appellant based on the
receipt is clearly false. The statement of the appellant that the account books had been lost in transit cannot be
believed.
Judgement- The Court held that under these circumstances this is a clear case wherein the
misappropriation by the appellant has been fully established. The Court ordered that the Advocate must be struck off
the rolls. And Under Section 38 of the Advocates it is directed that there shall be a decree in favour of the respondent
(complainant) for a sum of Rs. 22,379 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of
payment.
Retention of money deposited with advocate for the decree holder even after execution proceedings
15. Prahlad Saran Gupta V Bar council of India
Case no.: Appeal (civil) 3588 of 1984

Petitioner: Prahlad saran gupta
Respondent: Bar council of india and another

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Bench: S.c. agrawal & g.b. pattanaik

Citations- AIR 1997 SC.1338, 1997(2) SCR 499
Facts: A complaint was filed against Prahlad on behalf of a partner of the firm M/S. Atma Ram Nanak Chand. The
complaint stated that, “The appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor and had realised Rs. 1,600 from him out of
Which the sum of Rs. 1,500 was withheld by the appellant with himself and he did not pay it to the decree holder for a
period of eight months in spite of repeated requests.” And instead of handing over the amount, he deposited the said
amount in Court on May 2, 1978. The balance amount of Rs, 100 was taken by him as fee from the judgment debtor to
enable him to procure a stay order in the execution proceedings. The appellant denied the allegations. He stated that
after the writ for holing and action of the judgment debtor's property had been handed over to the court Amin, Shri
Nanak Chand, the father of the complainant.
Issue: Is the appellant of professional misconduct in wrongfully retaining the amount deposited for the decree holder
even after execution proceedings?
The Disciplinary Committee found the appellant guilty of gross professional mis-conduct on the basis of the following
findings:
a. The version of the complainant regarding receipt of Rs. 1,500 by the appellant finds support from the
endorsement by Shri Nanak Chand on the writ for auction and had told him that he had given the judgment
debtor two months’ time. The Said endorsement falsifies the version of the appellant.
b. It cannot be deduced that any arrangement had been arrived at between the decree holder and the judgment
debtor. It was the appellant who had granted two months’ time to the judgment debtor.
c. The conduct of the appellant in depositing the amount in the court does not makes sense since it could cause
harassment to his client in taking the amount back from the court. He could have sent the amount through a
bank draft if the decree holder was not coming forward to receive it.
Judgment- The DC partly allows the appeal as to holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct in wrongfully
retaining the amount of Rs. 1,500 and in not paying the said amount to the decree holder in spite of demand, we impose
the penalty of reprimand on the appellant for the said mis-conduct and the punishment of suspension from practice for
a period of one year on the appellant.
16. Misappropriation of Decretal amount- KV Umre v Venubai

Petitioner: K.V. Umre
Respondent: Smt. Venubai D. Gage and Anr
Bench: A Sen, E Venkataramiah, R Misra
Citations- AIR 1983 SC 1154, 1983 (2) SCALE 338, (1984) 1 SCC 29
Facts- The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India directed the appellant, who had misappropriated the
decretal amount of Rs. 11,760.70 payable to the respondent in two instalments, one of Rs. 6,000/- another of Rs. 4,000/-
And he shall remain suspended from practice for a period of one year. Although the appellant made payment but he
made a default in not making the deposits on due dates as stipulated which resulted in his permanent disbarment. The
aggrieved appellant made an application for review to the Disciplinary Committee, but it was rejected. It observed that
he had misappropriated and showing any leniency would be against the spirit of r. 20 of the Bar Council of India. And if
lawyers were allowed to withhold payment of compensation awarded and pay the same in instalments, it would amount
to sharing of profits of litigation. Thus, the appeal has now come to The Supreme Court.
Issue- Whether the Disciplinary Committee should consider the application for review afresh in the light of the facts
or not?
There was complete lack of condor on the part of the appellant as earlier alleged and thereafter when the State Bar
Council initiated disciplinary proceedings, he took a false plea that Rs. 6,600/- were due to him towards fee. Looking to
the seriousness of the charge, we feel that the Disciplinary Committee took a rather lenient view in limiting the period of
suspension to one year. If the Disciplinary Committee had initially struck off the name of the appellant from the rolls for

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
all times, then the rejection of the application for review would be justified but the Disciplinary Committee limited the
period of suspension to one year.
Judgement- We therefore feel that the Disciplinary Committee should consider the application for review afresh in the
light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In fixing the period of suspension, it must keep in view that the
appellant had completely betrayed the trust reposed in him by the respondent.
17. Taking money from client for the purpose of giving bribe- Chandra Sekhar Soni v Bar Council of Rajasthan
Petitioner: Chandra Sekhar Soni
Respondent: Bar Council of Rajasthan
Bench: A Sen, E Venkataramiah, R Misra
Act- Rule 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules, Sectiomn 38, 35(c) of Advocates Acct, 1961.
Citations- AIR 1983 SC 1012, 1983 (2) SCALE 384, (1983) 4 SCC 255
Facts- The complainant were referred to Dr. Mangal Sharma, Radiologist who after taking X-rays sent a report to the
Station House Officer that he found nothing abnormal. The appellant approached the complainant promised to get a
favourable report if he was engaged as a counsel and said that Rs. 300/- had to be paid to Dr. Sharma. The appellant
then sent the complainant along with a letter to Dr. Sharma to the effect. Then Dr. Mangal Sharma sent another letter
changing the pervious report according to the Advocate. When asked about this in Court Chandra Shekhar pleaded that
he had sent the Editor of a newspaper Jan Prahari for publication of an advertisement. But According to evidence the DC
held him Guilty of professional misconduct. Then the Advocate approached the SC.
Issue- Whether taking money from client for the purpose of giving bribe mounts to professional
Misconduct?
There is a long catena of decisions laying down that offering of bribe or giving bribe or taking money from the client for
the purpose of giving bribe amounts to grave professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee has upheld the
finding of the State Bar Council disbelieving the defence version. The explanation of Mangal is that he had lost the letter.
Contrary to the version of the complainant is that he had taken the letter to Dr. Sharma who after reading it returned the
same to him. This completely falsifies the plea taken by the appellant in his defence that the letter was meant for
publication of an advertisement in the newspaper. Admittedly, no such advertisement was ever published.
Judgement- The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant had taken money to pay a bribe to the
Radiologist. Thus, the court holds appellant guilty of professional and it feels that it would meet the ends of justice if the
suspension is for one year under Section 35(c) of the Act.
18. Rushing towards potential clients and snatching briefs- The bar Council of Maharashtra v MV
Dabholkar
Case no.: Civil Appeal Nos. 1461 to 1468 of 1974
Petitioner: The bar Council of Maharashtra
Respondent: MV Dabholkar
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh Gupta, A.C. Fazalali, Syed Murtaza.
Act- Section 10, 35 of Advocate Act, 1961
Citations- AIR 1976 SC 242, 1976 SCR (2) 48
Facts- The respondents were charged with professional misconduct, that they positioned themselves at the
entrance to the Magistrates' Courts, watchful of the arrival of potential litigants and rushed towards the
clients in an ugly scrimmage to snatch the briefs. The Disciplinary Committee held the respondents guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended them for 3 years. On appeal, the Disciplinary Committee under 49(c)
of the Advocates Act absolved all the respondents of the charge of professional misconduct. The State Bar
Council has now come in appeal to this Court.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Issue- Are the advocates guilty of Professional Misconduct?

Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven of commercial competition or procurement should
not vulgarise the legal profession. The contention that the resolution of the Bar Council did not ex facie
disclose that it had reason to believe that the advocates were guilty of professional misconduct had no merit.
The requirement of "reason to believe" cannot be converted into a formalised procedural road block, it being
essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries. The consolidation of all cases and trying them all jointly,
although the charges are different is obviously violative of fair trial. The exercise in discovering the three
elements of r. 36 was as unserviceable
as it was supererogatory.
Judgement- The Court held that the object of framing this rule is to safeguard the interest of profession itself.
Advocacy is a profession and not a business. The restriction put on this profession under the said rule is
Constitutional and not violative to Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The object is to achieve
the efficiency of advocates to the legal profession, to safeguard the interest of both advocate as well as public
at large. Thus, it does not hold the Advocates guilty of professional misconduct.
Non filing of the case or filing of the case with nominal court fees
19. Case: Allahabad Bank v. Girish Prasad Verma

Case no.: BCI Tr. Case No. 49/1993
Petitioner: Allahabad Bank
Respondent: Girish Prasad Verma
Act- The Advocates Act, 1961
Facts- In this case complainant Allahabad Bank filed complaint against the advocate Girish Chandra Verma
alleging that out of the 52 suits which were given to the advocate for filing in the court 50 suits were filed with
nominal court fees and 2 suits were not filed at all and the advocate misappropriated the sum the sum paid to
him by the complainant for the purpose of court fees.
Issue- Was Non filing of the case or filing of the case with nominal court fees amount to Professional
misconduct?
The non-filing of case and misusing the amount given for court fees amount to misconduct. It is the duty of an
advocate to abide by the rules and regulations. An advocate is expected to exercise reasonable skill and
prudence and should not be negligent. Legal profession is a noble profession and its members must set an
example of conduct worthy of emulation not set an example to show public not to trust our legal system. The
act of the Appellant here is in violation of Rule 23 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
Judgement- U.P Bar Council disciplinary committee held that the advocate has misappropriated the amount of
the court fees and further ordered for the striking of the name of the advocate from the roll of the U.P Bar
Council.
20. Case: L.C Goyal v. Suresh Joshi

Petitioner: L.C Goyal
Respondent: Suresh Joshi
Bench: Justice V.N. Khare, A.S. Anand
Act- Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Citations- AIR 1999 SC 2222
Facts- In September 1989, the complainant engaged the appellant for filing a suit for injunction on the
Original Side of the High Court of Delhi. The appellant filed the suit. The appellant is alleged to have charged
Rs.38,000/-. The appellant gave receipt for the same. In 1992 the complainant came to know that the

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
appellant has not deposited the process fee and also did not press the application for interim injunction filed
in the suit. The complainant found that the appellant has misappropriated the money. After realising his
mistake, the appellant issued a cheque. The said cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. Then complainant
then sent a notice which was ignored. Under such circumstances the complainant filed a complaint before the
Bar Council of India.
Issue- Whether the act of appellant of misappropriating the money amount to professional misconduct?
When asked by the court about the check, he denied the allegations that he has received a sum of Rs.38,000/-
towards payment of court fee and also denied his signatures alleging that his signatures were forged as his
check book was stolen. But it was found that that no complaint was received from the appellant regarding
theft of cheque book. The Bar Council found that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.38,000 from the
respondent towards payment of court fee which he never deposited in the Court and the signature on the
check is of the appellant. Thus, under The Advocates Act he is guilty of Professional misconduct.
Judgement- The Bar Council of India after having found that the appellant has committed professional
misconduct as he misappropriated the money received as court-fee and suspended his licence to practice for a
period of five years.
21. Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry,

Petitioner: Sambhu Ram Yadav
Respondent: Hanuman Das Khatry
Bench: KT Thomas and YK Sabharwal
Citations- 2001 6 SCC 1. 165
Facts- A complaint filed by appellant against respondent before BAR COUNCIL of Rajasthan. The complaint was that the
respondent while appearing as a council, he wrote a letter to his client stating that the concerned judge, before
whom the suit is pending accepts bribes, and asked for Rs. 10,000 to bribe and influence the judge to obtain a
favourable order. The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India holding that the advocate was guilty of
misconduct, enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of the respondent be struck off from the roll of
advocates, thus debarring him permanently from the practice when is was only suspended for 2 years by the Rajasthan
Bar, aggrieved he approached SC.
Issue- Whether the Advocate guilty of Professional misconduct?

When asked the appellant in reply to the complaint, he pleaded that the services of the Presiding Judge were terminated
on account of illegal gratification. He only brought these facts to the knowledge of his client to protect his interest and
the money was not sent by his client to him. The state BAR COUNCIL noticed that the respondent admitted to the
contents of the letter as true anf found him guilty of the misconduct.
Judgement- The Supreme Court, upholding the finding of the Rajasthan Bar Council held that the legal
profession is not a trade or business. The act of the advocate was misconduct of the highest degree as it not
only obstructed the administration of justice, but eroded the reputation of the profession in the opinion of the
public.
22. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju.

Petitioner: Harish Chandra Tiwari
Respondent: Baiju
Bench: K.T Thomas, S.N Phukan, JJ.
Act- Section 38 of Advocates Act. 1961, Prevention of Corruption.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Citations- AIR 2002 SC 548, (2002) 1 UPLBEC 313
Facts- Appellant was engaged by Respondent in a land acquisition case in which the respondent was a
claimant for compensation. The respondent was an old, helpless, poor illiterate person. Compensation of Rs.
8118/- for the acquisition of the land was deposited by the State in the court. Appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per orders of the court he withdrew the said amount. But he did not return it to the client
to whom it was payable nor did he inform the client about the receipt of the amount. Long thereafter, when
the client came to know of it, compliant was lodged by him with the Bar Council of the State for initiating
suitable disciplinary action against the appellant.
Issue- Whether the advocate guilty of professional misconduct and if yes then what should be the quantum
of punishment to be awarded to such a delinquent advocate?
When asked about the money the advocate adopted a defence that he had returned the amount to the client
after deducting his fees and expenses. Also, that presented an affidavit that stated a compromise between the
appellant and respondent had been arrived was stated. The court Found that the affidavit was forged and that
application was fabricated. In all cases, when the money of the client reaches his hand, it is a trust. If a public
servant misappropriates money, he is liable to be punished under the present Prevention of Corruption Act,
with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year. But if an advocate misappropriates money of the
client there is no justification in de-escalating the gravity of the misdemeanour.
Judgement- The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal with the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate. And suspension from practice as an Advocate for a period of 3 years.
D. Contempt of Court and Improper behavior before Magistrate
An advocate must respect the court and maintain the dignity. Making of false allegations against the judicial
officers amounts to gross misconduct.
23. Hikmat AliKhan v Ishwar Prasad Arya

Petitioner: HIKMAT ALI KHAN
Respondent: ISHWAR PRASAD ARYA & ORS.
Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
Act- Section 35 of Advocates Acr, 1961, Section 25 of Arms Act.
Citations- AIR 1997. SC 864
Facts- Ishwar Prasad Arya assaulted his opponent advocate, Radhey Shyam in the courtroom with knife. After
investigation he was prosecuted for offences under section 307 of the IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act and
he was sentenced for 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. But by using a forged letter of the Governor asking
the court to suspend his sentence, he was released. When the sessions Judge found the letter as forged one
and he lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of U.P. The Bar council found him guilty and suspended him for
3 years.
Issue- Whether assaulting opponent with Knife in Court room amount to professional misconduct?
The Misconduct of respondent has been established when the advocate has been convicted of the offence of
attempting to commit murder and he has been convicted of the offence under section 307 I.P.C. It was also
found that the name of respondent was mentioned in register where in the names of bad characters are
entered. The acts of misconduct found established are serious in nature. The appeal filled by the appellant
therefore deserves to be allowed.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Judgement- Supreme court held that the gravity of the misconduct committed by him is so serious and the
punishment of suspending him from practice for 3 years is not sufficient and ordered the removal of his name
from the roll of Advocates.
Not appearing before the court deliberately and intentionally
24. Case: Smt. P. Pankajam v. B.H. Chandrashekhar.

Case no.: BCI Tr. No.86/1992
Petitioner: Smt. P. Pankajam
Respondent: B.H. Chandrashekhar.
Act- The Advocates Act. 1961
Facts: In this case the complainant Smt. Pankajam filed a case against against her advocate alleging
misconduct on his part as after accepting the brief and having received the payment he did not attend the
proceedings and she lost the case.
Issue: Whether the act of an advocate not appearing before the court deliberately and intentionally amount
to professional misconduct?
It is the duty of every advocate who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial. Having accepted the brief, he
will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he so fails to attend. The Court after analysis the evidence and
materials presented found that the advocate deliberately did not appear before the court.
Judgement: The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held that the advocates conduct in not
appearing before the court was an intentional and deliberate act. The committee held the respondent
advocate guilty of profession misconduct and ordered that he be suspended from practice for a period of two
years.
25. False identification of Deponents- Brahma din and others v Chandrasekhar Shukla,
Case no.: Misc. Case 347 Of 1955
Petitioner: Brahma din
Respondent: Chandrasekhar Shukla
Bench: O Mootham, A Srivastava
Act- The Advocates Act, 1961.
Citations- AIR 1958 AP 116, AIR 1958 All 415, 1958 CriLJ 707
Facts- In the year 1945 the Development Board acquired certain premises belonging to two persons, Branhma
din and his brother Suraj Prasad, and a sum of Rs. 6,292 was deposited with the District Judge for payment to
them as compensation. Suraj applied for payment to them only to be informed that this amount had been
withdrawn on behalf of Brahma Din by the Vakil in question in the year 1948. What happened was a person
impersonated Brahma Din approached the Vakil said that his brother Suraj Prasad is dead, asked to withdraw
the money then on deposit with the District Judge. The Vakil presented the affidavit in each case stating that he
was Brahma Din and that he accordingly was the only person entitled to withdraw the amount awarded as
compensation.
Issue- whether the Vakil in identifying his client as Brahma Din was guilty of professional misconduct?
The Vakil said that he acted throughout in good faith. Vakil did not know prior how his client looked, the client
produced only certain rough notes stating that he was Brahma. Vakil accepted that his act was merely negligent.
The Court held that the conduct of the Vakil goes beyond mere negligence. The statement made by the Vakil
was that he knows the deponent to be Brahma Din, and which we know was a false statement. He knew that

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
payment would only be paid when its Brahma so he consequently purported identification undoubtedly to
mislead the court. Thus, Vakil was guilty of gross-misconduct in the discharge of his professional duty.
Judgement- The court held that Vakil was doing no more than what many other practitioners have done before and
since. We do not propose to impose any penalty on the Vakil, but we express our strong disapproval of his conduct. The
Court will not regard with leniency in cases which may come before it in future of irresponsible identification by legal
practitioners.
F. Appearing for both the sides
An advocate is under a duty to do his best to protect the interest of his clients. He must not represent conflicting
interest.
L) Forcing the procecution witness not to tell the truth.

26. Noratanman Courasia v. M. R. Murali.
Petitioner: Noratanman Courasia
Respondent: M. R. Murali
Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia.
Act- The Advocates Act, 1961.
Citations- 2004 AIR 2440.
Facts- The relationship between the appellant and the respondents herein is that of landlords and tenant. A rent
control proceeding was initiated by the respondents against the appellant. An advocate (appearing as a litigant in the
capacity of the respondent, and not an advocate in a rent control proceeding) assaulted and kicked the
complainant and asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case.
Issue- Whether the act of the advocate amounted to misconduct, the action against which could be
initiated in the Bar Council, even though he was not acting in the capacity of an advocate?
A lawyer is obliged to observe the norms of behaviour expected of him, which make him worthy of the
confidence of the community in him as an officer of the Court. The fact that the first respondent assaulted the
complainant, asked him not to proceed with the case and on the third occasion kicked him as a result whereof he fell
down are clear pointers to the fact that such acts are not expected of a member of a legal profession and, thus, the same
must be held to be acts of misconduct.
Judgement- It was upheld by the Supreme Court that in spite of the fact that he was not acting in his capacity
as an advocate, his behaviour was unfit for an advocate, and the Bar Council was justified in proceeding with
the disciplinary proceedings against him.
27. Case: P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti and Anr.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 15496/1986
Petitioner: P.D. Gupta
Respondent: Ram Murti and Anr.
Bench: S.C. Agrawal, D.P. Wadhwa
Act- Section 36 of Advocates Act, 1961.
Facts- Once Srikishan Dass died leaving behind extensive immovable properties. Claims to the said properties
were made by Vidyawati claiming to be the sister of the deceased, Ram Murti and two others who claimed
themselves to be the heir of the deceased.
Later the said properties were purchased by the advocate of Vidyawati knowing them to be disputed. The
advocate thereafter sold the property to a third party and made profit. A complaint was made against the

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi.
Issue- Whether the Purchase of the property in dispute of the client amount to
professional misconduct?
P.D. Gupta claims to know vidyawati. He knew Vidyawati closely and yet contradictory stands were taken by Vidyawati
when she varyingly described herself as real sister or step-sister of Srikishan Dass. These contradictory stands in fact cast
doubt on the very existence of Vidyawati herself. This also created doubt about bona fides of P.D. Gupta who seemed to
be a family lawyer of vidyawati. P.D. Gupta knew that the property purchased by him was subject matter of litigation. He
as a lawyer conducting the case owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to the opposite
party in the conduct of the case. P.D. Gupta in buying the property as in effect subverted the process of justice. His
action has raised serious questions about his fairness as an advocate.
Judgement- The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India found him guilty of professional
misconduct and suspended him from practice for period of one year under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act.
CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT DECIDED BY

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING CASE
28. DC Appeal No. 16/1993 25(1) 1998 IBR 135 1

29. DC Appeal No. 8/1994 25(1) 1998 IBR 153 4
30. BCI Transfer Case No. 76/1995 24(3&4) 1997 IBR 201 10
31. BCI Transfer Case No. 104/1990 23(1) 1996 IBR 155 12
WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS
34. DC Appeal No 10/1986 & 10A/1986 14(3) 1987 IBR 491 32

35. DC Appeal No. 12/1986 14(4) 1987 IBR 745 34
FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTS, MISAPPROPRIATION OF CLIENT’S MONEY, BREACH OF TRUST, MISUSE OF

CLIENT’S CONFIDENCE
36. DC Appeal No. 21/1985 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 359 42
MISLEADING CLIENT, CHEATING THE CLIENT, MAKING FALSE ASSURANCES
37. DC Appeal No. 34/1985 14(4) 1987 IBR 757 62

38. B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 127/1988 19(3&4) 1992 IBR 125
DISREGARD OF CLIENT’S INTEREST

39. DC Appeal No. 33/1986 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 354 68

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
WITHDRAWAL FROM CASE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASON AND SUFFICIENT NOTICE
REPRESENTING THE OTHER SIDE, CHANGING OF SIDE, APPEARING FOR BOTH SIDES
44. DC Appeal No. 6/1981 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 193 78
45. DC Appeal No. 64/1974 14(2) 1987 IBR 314 79
MISGUIDING COURT
INTERFERING WITH THE DECISION BY INFLUENCING THE JUDGE

48. DC Appeal No. 46/1986 16(2) 1989 IBR 280 85
MAKING SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDING OFFICER

51. DC Appeal No. 41/1986 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 200 92
CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN ADVOCATE, LOWERING DIGNITY OF PROFESSION

53. DC Appeal No. 14/1988 16(2) 1989 IBR 258 95
54. DC Appeal No. 10/1988 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 572 98
ACTING IN A CASE IN WHICH THE ADVOCATE HAS PECUNIARY INTEREST, SHARING PROFITS OF
CASE AND LENDING MONEY TO THE CLIENT
55. DC Appeal No. 23/1988 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 532 100
CONVICTION FOR OFFENCE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

57. DC Appeal No. 45/1974 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 182 104
FORGERY

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
CASE 28
(Negligence in Conducting Case)
A vs. R

Petitioner: A
Respondent: R
Bench: Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri O.P. Sharma and Shri T.P. Singh (Members)
Citations- 25(1) 1998 IBR135
Facts- Complainant filed a suit for injunction against him through his Advocate. The court
ordered that since there is payment deficit of Court fee, we reject the plaint. The
Complainant then alleges that the Respondent was negligent in conducting the case and did
not inform him regarding any progress of the case as a result of which the order of the
Court for payment of deficit Court fee could not be complied with. The complainant stated
that even after countless imitations were made to know about the case the advocate
ignored him. Respondent-Advocate denied the averments of the complaint.
Issue- Whether the advocate is guilty of professional misconduct by showing

negligence in conducting case?
It is unbecoming of an Advocate to keep his client in darkness about the progress of the case.
Evidence prove that the suit was dismissed due to negligence of Respondent.
Respondent has admitted that he refused to file delay condonation application in application for
restoration which amount to misconduct on his part.
Judgement- D.C. of B.C.I debarred the Respondent-Advocate from practice for a period of
One year.
CASE 29
A vs. R

Petitioner: A
Respondent: R
Bench: Shri D.V. Patil (Chairman) and Shri S.C. Chawla and Shri S.G. Nair (Members)

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

Facts- In 1984 the Respondent advised the Complainant to file a suit against the builders
for recovery of money. Complainant engaged the Respondent by paying Rs. 5,000 and
signed the plaint. When the Complainant enquired about the progress of the case by though
letters on countless times, he received no reply. Thus, the complaint was filed against the
Advocate for professional misconduct. But the Respondent outrightly denied taking up
Complainant’s case.
Issue- Whether the Respondent is guilty of any professional misconduct?
Respondent in his evidence admitted that there was neither written communication
between complainant and the Respondent-Advocate nor any proof for the payment of Rs.
5000. Complainant’s case was supported by an independent witness whose evidence was of
great weight and could not be easily brushed aside.
Judgement- After seeing the evidence before them, D.C. of B.C.I. was of the opinion that the
Respondent was engaged by the Complainant as his counsel. In spite of having received the
fees, the Respondent did not file the suit. Hence the Respondent was found guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended the Respondent for a period of 6 months from
practice.
CASE 30
C vs. R
Case no.: B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 76/1995

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Bench: Shri Jagannath Patnaik (Chairman) and Shri Ashok Deb and Shri S.K. Padhi (Members)
Act-
Citations- 24(3&4) 1997 IBR 201
Facts-
Complainant engaged Respondent to file a case in respect of theft committed in his house.
Respondent had filed the notice and complain. He had promised that he would charge
minimum fees. Complainant paid in all Rs. 4000.00 to the Respondent for fees and
expenses. But later the Complainant became very busy, instructed the Respondent not
to file the case, and asked him to return Rs. 4000 paid by him. However, the Complainant
did not return the money.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Respondent denied the allegations made by the Complainant. He stated that the
Complainant was referred to him by senior Counsel, to help the Complainant, as he was a
poor person, without charging any fees. The Respondent then to demanded receipt from
the complaint for having received the document. But the complainant instead filed a case
against the Respondent.
Issue- Whether the Respondent did professional misconduct by not rendering the service to
the Complainant, if he has paid the alleged amount?
On the question Complainant stated that he was prepared to pay the reasonable fees as may
be decided by the committee. In the cross-examination he stated that in order to pay the
fees, he had borrowed Rs. 4,000 from a neighbouring lady. Respondent denied the
suggestion put to him that he has received Rs. 4,000 towards fees and expenses.
In support of his allegations, Complainant did not produce any convincing
evidence.
Judgement- The D.C. of the B.C.I. felt that it was not unjustified on the part of Respondent
to demand receipt from the complaint for having received the document. The Court held
that it is not uncommon practice when a senior colleague sends a case to another colleague
with a request to help the client. Since, the Complainant failed to prove his case against the
Respondent for professional misconduct, the complaint was dismissed.
CASE 31
(Negligence in Conducting Case and Misleading Client)
C vs. R

Petitioner: C
Respondent: R
Bench: Shri Jagannath Patnaik (Chairman) and Shri Ashok Deb and Shri S.K. Padhi (Members)
Citations- 23(1) 1996 IBR 155
Facts- The Complainant had filed a suit in respect of an immovable property and had
appointed the Respondent-Advocate to represent him in the said case. The Complainant
visited the Respondent on different dates to ask about the progress of the case. He was
informed that the case was pending in the Court of the Rent Controller. After a considerable
time, the Complainant discovered that the case had
been dismissed for default long back. Respondent could not give any reason for the

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
dismissal of the case for default, and also for making the false representations to the
Complainant that the case was pending.
Issue- Whether the Advocate guilty of professional misconduct?

Since the Respondent-Advocate had neither expressed remorse nor tendered apology in his
defence. On the contrary, he had unnecessarily tried to put blame upon the
Complainant himself. The B.C.I. had no hesitation in holding that the Respondent had
committed professional misconduct as it is well settled that gross negligence on the part of
an Advocate which leads to the suffering and harassment of the client will amount to
misconduct, and that it was exactly what had happened in this case.
Judgement- In view of all these circumstances, the D.C. of B.C.I. found it proper to suspend
the Respondent-Advocate from practice for a period of six months.
CASE 32
(Negligence in Conducting Case and Threatening Client)
Kapil Dev Singh vs. Prem Nath

Petitioner: Kapil Dev Singh
Respondent: Prem Nath
Bench: Shri V.C. Sharma (Chairman) and Shri B.N. Sharma and Shri Sarvesh Sharam (Members)
Facts- Complainant engaged the Respondent-Advocate as his counsel for filing two Writ
Petitions, and paid him Rs. 2000. Respondent assured the Complainant that he would file
the Writ Petitions. When Respondent enquired it was told that he had already got the Writ
Petitions filed through a High Court Advocate. However, he could not tell the name of the
High Court Advocate. Becoming suspicious, the Complainant made enquiries and found
that the Writ Petitions were not filed. Therefore, he met the Respondent, he realizing the
trouble, threatened and insulted the Complainant. In question Respondent in his defence
denied all the contentions of the Complainant..
Issue- Whether the respondent guilty of professional misconduct?

The Respondent did not even care to appear before the S.B.C. or the Bar Council of India. He
did not deny the payment of Rs. 2,000 or the delivery of papers to him. The B.C.I. was
surprised to see that the Respondent also did not
care to file any affidavit in support of his defence. Therefore, since there was no defence from
the respondent to prove his innocence, the Court found him guilty.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Judgement- Thus the Court holds the Respondent guilty of misconduct as alleged in the
complaint and suspended from practice for a period of six months.
CASE 33
(Vicarious Liability for the Acts of a Partner)
State Bank of India vs. Mrs. S. and Co.
Petitioner: State Bank of India
Respondent: Mrs. S. and Co.
Bench: Shri B.P. Samaiyar (Chairman) and Shri K.P. Sinha and Shri V.C. Mishra (Members)
Act- 36B of Advocates Act, 1961.
Facts- According to the advise given by the respo ndent the Bank, it lodged a Police
complaint and filed a civil suit through the Respondent Firm. When the Bank enquired with
the Respondent Firm about the name of the Court in which the suit had been filed. But no
reply was received. Therefore, it became suspicious and when the Bank was informed that
the suit had been filed by the Respondent firm, the plaint was returned to it by the Court
office for rectifying certain defects in plaint. But the plaint was not represented. Thus, the
Complainant bank believes that the Respondent Firm had misappropriated the money
given to it towards fees and expenses. Respondents denied all the allegations. He further
contended that the Complainant had signed vakalatnama only in the name of the senior
member of the Firm. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint were true, he is not
liable because for the misconduct of one partner another partner is not held liable unless
they abetted.
Issue: Whether the senior partner guilty of professional misconduct or the
Respondent?
Complainant stated in his evidence that the plaint was returned because court fee had not
been paid. This was rejected as untrue because if the court fee is not paid or if it is in the
deficit, the plaint is not returned, but time is given for the payment of deficit court fee.
However, the Complainant Bank successfully established that it had handed over the
valuable original loan documents to the senior partner of the Respondent Firm. Hence, the
D.C. of B.C.I. held the senior partner of the firm guilty of committing misconduct by
withholding the valuable documents of the Bank. The D.C. of B.C.I. held that the other
partners cannot be vicariously liable for the misconduct of the senior partner, and they
were exonerated of all charges levelled against them.
Judgement: Therefore, the senior partner of the firm was found guilty of serious
professional misconduct and was suspended from practice for a period of 5 years. He was
also made liable to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Complainant Bank.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
CASE 34
(Withholding Documents)
R vs. L.J L.J vs. R
Case no.: D.C. Appeal No. 10/1986 & D.C. Appeal No. 10A/1986
Bench: Shri N. Rangaraj (Chairman) and Shri K.N. Rajashekhar and Shri P.V. Shetty (Members)
Facts: Complainant had entrusted a Promissory Note to the Respondent to issue a notice
to the debtor, and had paid the fees therefor. The notice came to be issued and
subsequently the Complainant demanded the notice back. But the Respondent-Advocate
refused and demanded fee through a notice. When asked the Complainant stated that he
was not liable to pay fees. The Respondent did not take any step to return the Promissory
Note and the suit became time barred causing loss to the Complainant to the tune of
Rs.11,000.
Issue: whether the Respondent had the right to withhold the document?
From the records it was clear that after the notice was issued by the Respondent. Normally
no Advocate issues any notice without collecting the charges. Therefore, the Respondent’s
demand for fees after a period of one year was found to be unusual. Therefore, the Advocate
had no right to withhold the document and as such he was held guilty of misconduct. The
D.C. of the S.B.C. punished the Respondent by suspending him for a period of 1 month
without costs.
Judgement: When the case was put before the D.C. of the B.C.I., they agreed with the
decision of the D.C. of the S.B.C., but added costs of Rs. 1,000 as fine to also be paid.
CASE 35
(Failure to Render Accounts, Misappropriation of Money, Withholding of Documents)
A vs. P

Petitioner: A
Respondent: P
Bench: Shri N. Rangaraj (Chairman) and Shri K.N. Rajashekhar and Shri P.V. Shetty (Members)
Facts: Complainant used to entrust his cases to the Respondent- Advocate for several years.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Here Respondent did not tender accounts to the Complainant and never paid the money due
to him. Therefore he wanted to withdraw the cases from the Respondent-Advocate. He also
stated that the Respondent-Advocate did not return the case papers to him. Respondent
pleaded that he used to help the Complainant at the time of financial distress by obtaining
loans for him. It was further contended that the Respondent used to repay the loans from
the rents received by him on behalf of the Complainant. He also claimed that the
Complainant was in arrears of fees. He also produced a statement of accounts.
Issue: Whether the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct by withholding the

documents?
The S.B.C. found from the evidence that the Respondent had returned the case papers to the
Complainant and also that he had never withheld any money from him. He had never made
any efforts to realize what amount was due to him from the Respondent. Since the complaint
was criminal in nature, it had to be proved beyond doubt which the Complainant had failed.
Therefore the D.C. of the S.B.C. dismissed the complaint exonerating the Respondent.
Judgement: When presented before The D.C. of the B.C.I. upheld the decision of the D.C. of
the S.B.C.
CASE 36
(Misappropriation of Client’s Money)
G vs. T

Petitioner: G
Respondent: T
Bench: Shri D.V. Patil (Chairman) and Shri N.K. Jain and Shri J.K. Singh (Members)
Citations- 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 359
Facts: Complainant had acquired land by the government were awarded compensation in
some land acquisition matters. The Respondent-Advocate was authorised to receive the
compensation money from the Collector. Accordingly the Respondent-Advocate received
compensation money, but he did not pay the same to
the Complainant in spite of several requests. Respondent denied that he had received money.
But during the proceedings before a the D.C. of S.B.C. he asserted that he had received the
cheque and after encashing it he had handed over the cash to his registered clerk for
delivering it to the Complainant. The clerk denied that the signature on the receipt was his
signature and maintained that it was the signature of the Complainant.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Issue: Whether the respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct?

The Respondent at first denied that he had received a money. Then he said that he had
received the cheque and gave it to the clerk. The evidence brought by the respondent was
receipt for the money was it was not related to the present case. The Respondent failed to
prove that he had paid the money to the Complainant.
Judgement: Therefore DC of the SBC and DC of BCI held that the Respondent was guilty of professional
misconduct by misappropriating client’s money. In the result, his name was removed from the Roll of
Advocates.. And they further awarded costs of Rs. 500 to the Complainant.
CASE 37
(Cheating the Client)
C vs. A

Petitioner: C
Respondent: A
Bench: Shri K.J. Shethna (Chairman) and Shri B.N. Sharma and Shri Ajay Kumar (Members)
Citations- 19(3&4) 1992 IBR 125
Facts: Respondent was running a Solicitor’s Firm. He was hand in glove with an impostor
who represented himself to the public as a financier. Complainant approached that impostor
for a loan of Rs. 7,00,000. Respondent represented that he was a reputed Advocate, and
therefore, worked only for genuine Financial Institutions. He told that the parties have to pay
him 5.5% of the loan. Therefore, the Complainant paid Rs. 38,500 to the Respondent. Later
on, the Respondent told that he would proceed with his legal work only if the Complainant
paid him Rs. 10,000 towards his fees which was paid. But instead of disbursing loan to the
Complainant, the financier initiated a false police case against the Complainant himself. The
police advised the Complainant to proceed against the Respondent through the S.B.C.
Issue: Whether the Respondent-Advocate has committed any misconduct?
From the evidence presented before the D.C. of B.C.I it was proved that the Respondent was in
collusion with the impostor deceived innocent people, and also
that he had defrauded the Complainant. Once the fact of fraud was proved, Respondent
had committed professional misconduct was also established. The Respondent did not show
any regret or remorse. The misconduct committed by the Respondent was of a very serious
nature.
Judgement: Therefore, the D.C. of B.C.I. ordered for removal of the name of the Respondent
from the Roll of Advocates. He was also ordered to pay Rs. 2,000 to the Complainant towards
the cost of the proceedings.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
CASE 38
(Making False Assurances)
R vs. Y and S

Petitioner: R
Respondent: Yand S
Facts: The Complainants jointly started an industry under the financial assistance from the
Canara Bank. The Bank had originally sanctioned a loan of Rs. 20 lakhs, after releasing a part
of the loan it stopped the payment and initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of the loan
already released. The Respondent- Advocate was engaged by the Complainant to represent
him in the said case. The Respondent-Advocate assured that he will be able to get a
compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs and collected excess money. But he did not take any steps for
getting the compensation. The Respondent contended that he had not assured to get them
any damages. “The Complainants were not ready to depose before the court”. and therefore,
he had advised them to compromise the case.
Issue: Whether the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct?

Respondent was the only witness on his side. The Complainants had proved
their case against the Respondent that he had collected excess money by making false
promise. Therefore the D.C. of the S.B.C. was of the opinion that he was guilty of misconduct.
However as the Respondent was aged about 80 years and had put in about 50 years of
practice he was only reprimanded. When asked the Respondent gave a strange explanation
which was dismissed by the D.C. of the B.C.I. with contempt. At this stage the Respondent
offered to refund the money collected by him in excess of his fees.
Judgement: Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the lower DC was upheld
on conviction.
CASE 39
(Disregard of Client’s Interest)
G vs. O

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

Petitioner: G
Respondent: O
Bench: Shri D.V. Patil (Chairman) and Shri N.K. Jain and Shri J.K. Singh (Members)
Citations- 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 354
Facts: Complainant had engaged the Respondent for legal services and had paid him some
amount towards fees and expenses. He had also signed vakalatnama in his favour.
Respondent advised the Complainant that he would be informed about the progress of the
proceedings. But in spite of several reminders Respondent did not inform the Complainant
about the progress in the matter. Thus case was filed aginast the Advocate.
Issue: Whether the advocate’s act amount to professional misconduct?

Respondent did not appear before the D.C. of the S.B.C. came to the conclusion that there was
a wilful and callous disregard of the interest of the client by the Respondent-Advocate and it
was a conduct not befitting an Advocate and suspensed him for 5 years. But then Respondent
appeared before the D.C. of the B.C.I. pleaded that though he had committed professional
misconduct, he had refunded the entire amount to the Complainant. Complainant confirmed
the same.
Judgement: The D.C. of the B.C.I. came to the conclusion that the records clearly showed that
there was no intentional lapse on the part of the Respondent-Advocate. The B.C.I. took a
lenient a view of the matter and reduced the punishment from suspension to reprimand.
CASE 40
(Withdrawal Form Case without Sufficient Reason and Sufficient Notice)
C.D. vs. S.S

Petitioner: C.D.
Respondent: S.S.
Bench: Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri V.C. Mishra and Shri O.P. Sharma (Members)
Citations- 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 197
Facts: The Respondent-Advocate represented the Complainant in an appeal and the

collected the fee Rs. 3,500. But the Respondent did not give any information to the
Complainant in respect of its progress even. She also did not return the papers when she
was asked to. When asked the Respondent admitted that the complainat had approached her
without any papers. When she requested for the same the Complainant did not comply with
the Respondent’s request. Respondent wrote a letter on 2.7/1997 stating that if further

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
instructions and papers are not given, her duties in the case ended without any outstanding
claims whatsoever. Respondent further denied that she had taken the fees as alleged in the
complaint.

The Complainant produced a copy of the notice dated 19.9.1977 which clearly mentioned
that the Respondent had filed an appeal on behalf of the Complainant and the same had
been admitted, and stay was granted. This showed that the Respondent had acted as an
Advocate for the Complainant in the appeal. The letter produced by the Respondent as the
notice by the Complainant was dated 2.7.1975 whereas the notice given by her on behalf of
the Complainant to the Municipal Corporation was dated 19.9.1977. Thus it was found that
the Respondent falsely denied that she was not representing the Complainant in the appeal.
Therefore, it was held that the Respondent had withdrawn from the case without giving
sufficient reason and notice.
Judgement: The D.C. of the B.C.I. held that the Respondent had committed professional
misconduct within the provisions of section 35 of the Advocates Act and only reprimanded
her.
CASE 41
(Representing the other side)
G vs. S

Petitioner: G
Respondent: S
Bench: Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri Bhagawati Prasad and Smt. Kamala Jain
Citations- 19 (3&4) 1992 IBR 72
Facts: There was a suit for dissolution of partnership among the members of the complainant’s firm. In
that suit, the Respondents represented the other partners against the Complainant. As the Complainant
had disclosed his case to the Respondents, they have committed misconduct by appearing against him.
Respondents denied that the Complainant had supplied or disclosed any information to them, which
would make them liable for passing on secrets.

The Complainant stated in his deposition that the meeting took place for about 15 minutes.
During the meeting, the Complainant informed the Respondents, in confidence, about
maneuvering of accounts and fraud committed by him in the partnership firm. The court held
that 15 min is short period for all the facts averred by the Complainant could not have
happened. Therefore, the D.C. of the held that the Respondents had not committed the alleged

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
misconduct. But felt that respondents should have not continued with the case and they
agreed to this.
Judgement: Therefore, in the light of above reasons, the D.C. of the B.C.I. was pleased to
dismiss the complaint.
CASE 42 F vs. K

Petitioner: F
Respondent: K
Bench: Shri K.J. Shethna (Chairman) and Shri B.N. Sharma and Shri H.C. Sharma (Members)
Citations- 19(3&4) 1992 IBR 149
Facts: The Complainant had filed a suit for partition against 14 persons in the Court of Civil
Judge. He was represented by the Respondent-Advocate. Defendant No. 5 in the suit for
partition filed application for final decree which was also represented by the advocate. Hence,
the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has committed professional misconduct by
changing sides in the case. Respondent stated that both of them together approached the
Respondent for filing of the suit as co-plaintiffs. As at the time of filing of the suit Md. Ali Ayub
Asghar was not available, he was impleaded as proforma Defendant. When Complainant
raised objections the Respondent retired from the case. This shows his bona fides.
Issue: Whether Respondent has committed any professional misconduct as alleged in

the complaint?
It was admitted the plaint specifically stated that Defendants No. 1 to 4 had acted against the
interest of the plaintiff and Defendants No. 5 to 14. Therefore, it was clear that the interests
of Complainant and Md. Ali Ayub Asghar were common and not distinct in that suit.
Therefore, there was nothing to show that the Respondent had violated the provisions of Rule
33.
Judgement: In the result, the complaint was dismissed.
CASE 43
(Changing of Side)
S.G. vs. C.P.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Petitioner: S.G
Respondent: C.P.
Facts: The Complainant has a dispute pending since about 5 years prior to the date of this
complaint. In that case, the Complainant is represented by the Respondent-Advocate. The
Complainant came to know that the Assistant Registrar had gone in to collusion with the
other side, and that he could not expect to get any justice from him. Therefore, he filed a suit
in which Respondent represented the other side. Therefore by joining the other side in the
case the Respondent had committed professional misconduct. Several notices which were
issued to the Respondent, he did not care to appear before the D.C. and to present his side of
the case. Therefore, the Committee placed him ex parte.
Issue: Whether the Complainant has succeeded in establishing that

in fact the Respondent had worked for him before the
Assistant Registrar?
According to the Complainant this clearly showed that the Respondent was duly acquainted
with the facts of the Complainant’s case. No vakalatnama was produced. Evidence presented
was also proved to be forged. In the result, it was held that the Complainant had failed to
prove his case.
Judgement: Hence the case was dismissed.
CASE 44
(Appearing Against Person Giving Instructions to the Advocate)
R vs C

Petitioner: R
Respondent: C
Bench: Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri V.C. Mishra and Shri O.P. Sharma (Members)
Citations- 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 193
Facts: Complainant is the Power of Attorney-holder of a woman whose cases were

conducted by the Respondent. During the pendency of the litigations the said woman
cancelled her power of attorney which she had executed in favour of the Complainant.
Subsequently she executed a will in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant’s
sister’s daughter who was staying with the said a woman also claimed that the said woman
had executed a will in her favour. Thus there was a dispute among in which niece was

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
represented by the Respondent. Hence the Respondent has committed professional

misconduct by appearing against him.

It was admitted by the Complainant that he had not seen the Respondent after the
cancellation of the power of attorney. Complainant never sought the advice of the
Respondent in respect of the will or any property of the deceased. Therefore there is no
relationship of a client and Advocate between the Complainant and the Respondent.
Judgememt: Therefore the DC of Maharashtra S.B.C. held that there was no misconduct suit
against the Complainant.
CASE 45
(Appearing for Both Sides)
P vs. V

Petitioner: P
Respondent: V
Facts: Complainant had engaged the Respondent-Advocate to represent him in that suit by
paying him Rs. 750 towards his professional fees. According to the complaint the advocate
moved an application for the withdrawal of the vakalatnama on the ground that he could not
represent the Complainant in that suit inasmuch as, he was already representing the
Plaintiff therein. When complainant asked him not
represent the Plaintiff, he did not comply. Respondent denied the case of the Complainant in
toto. Alleged that the complainant had manipulated the respondent’s son in filing the
vakalatnama which he withdrawn.
Complainant submitted that if the Respondent withdraws from the case, he would withdraw
his complaint. After going through the evidence carefully, the D.C. of the S.B.C. had no doubt
that the Complainant had known fully well that the Respondent was the Advocate for the
Plaintiff. The D.C. found that the evidence of the Respondent that the Complainant had got the
vakalatnama filed by the Respondent’s son through fraud, worthy of credit.
Jugement: Therefore, the D.C. of the S.B.C. was pleased to dismiss the complaint.
CASE 46

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
(Misguiding Court by Filing False Case)

District Judge, Nainital vs. R

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Bench: Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri O.P. Sharma and Shri T.P. Singh (Members)
Act-
Facts: Proceedings under sec. 36 of the Advocates Act 1961 were initiated against the
Respondent. Several notices were sent to the Respondent, but the Respondent did not
appear. Hence the case was decided ex parte against him.
The case was filed by the Respondent-Advocate who is no other than the brother of
the deceased. There was a collusion with the family members of Mohsin Ali Khan the
Respondent- Advocate had filed this false case to obtain an award from the Tribunal.
Being decessed’s brother, he very well knew that Mohsin Ali Khan had died on 28.4.83
and not on 11.9.1983 as alleged in the petition.

Facts of the case are peculiar in nature and the same cannot be dealt softly and
casually. The charged Advocate who has taken the matter very lightly,
though serious in nature and has not led any effective evidence in support of his
defence, a word of apology cannot exonerate him from the charge levelled against
him.
Judgement: committee held that Advocate should be debarred for a period of two
year.
CASE 47
(Identifying Wrong Person before Court)
J.R. vs J.K.

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Bench: Shri V.C. Mishra (Chairman) and Shri B.N. Sharma and Shri Viresh Mishra (Members)
Act-
Citations- 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 550

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
Facts: Land of the Complainant was acquired by the state along with some other
lands. The state deposited compensation amount in the Court. But due to mistake, the
list contained the name of some other person (A) in place of the name of the
Complainant. A third person (B) withdrew the amount by representing himself to be
A. The Respondent identified B as A. It was later found that that the person who
withdrew the money belonging to the Complainant subsequently realised the mistake
and immediately thereupon he redeposited the amount in the court.

The evidence of an independent witness adduced by the Respondent clearly showed
that the practice of the court was that the Advocate identifies the sarpanch and
numberdars, and the sarpanch and numberdars in turn identify the parties. There
was no reason to disbelieve these testimonies.
Judgement: Therefore no case of misconduct was made out against the
Respondent-Advocate. The D.C. of the B.C.I. dismissed the appeal.
CASE 48
(Interfering with the Decision by Influencing the Judge)
Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. G.M.

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Bench: Shri V.C. Mishra (Chairman) and Shri K.D. Sood and Shri D.K. Trivedi (Members)
Act-
Facts: An Advocate issued a pamphlet containing allegations of corruption,

misconduct, etc against the members of the bar as well as the judiciary. In that it was
alleged that the Respondent was appearing as a Public Prosecutor in a criminal case
to which the witnesses had confirmed. But the judge manipulated the witness
statement. After inquiry, the Maharashtra S.B.C. initiated suo motu disciplinary
proceedings against the Respondent.
Issue: Whether the advocate’s and judge act amount to professional

misconduct?
The defence alleged that there was no manipulation in their copy. Therefore it was
apparent that it was inserted by the judge at the instance of the Public Prosecutor.
With the evidence presented it was clear that at the time of deposition itself the
correction was made. It was not known at whose resistance it was make. Even if it was

lOMoARcPSD|20962035
made at the instance of the public prosecutor, it was difficult to attribute any mala fide
intention or ulterior motive to it.
Judgement: Therefore the Bar Council could not hold the Public Prosecutor guilty of
professional misconduct and dismiised the appeal.
CASE 49
(Interfering with Decision by Influencing the Judge)
Suo Motu Enquiry vs. Smt. S.T.B.

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Bench: Shri N. Rangaraj (Chairman) and Shri P.V. Shetty and Shri A.B. Patil (Members)
Act-
Facts: Maharashtra S.B.C. initiated suo motu inquiry against the
Respondent on the basis of a complaint filed by a Housing Society. The suit was
delayed beyond reasonable period and the society suffered a great hardship, loss and
inconvenience. When Advocate assured the society that she would get the matter
disposed of early by exercising her personal influence over the judge and demanded
certain amount of money for that purpose which they all paid. The Respondent denied
all the allegations made against her. And connection with the society.

The Bar Council was inclined to accept the evidence of the Complainant’s witnesses
which categorically stated that the money paid to the Respondent has collected from
the members of the society, as this evidence. Under these circumstances if the
Secretary of the Society comes out and supporters the case of the Respondent, his
evidence is not worthy of any credit. The Respondent being an Advocate was required
to maintain professional integrity and standard. No Advocate can offer to do
something to get him the case or get a favourable order from the Court by exercising
his personal influence over the presiding officer of the Court.
Judgement: Therefore B.C.I. suspended the Respondent from practice for a period of
1 year. The Respondent was also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the Complainant
towards the costs of the case.
CASE 50

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

14(3) 1987 IBR 488
D.C. Appeal No. 40/1986
G vs. M
Shri M.L. Garg (Chairman) and Shri R.S. Mahendra and Shri N.N. Mathur (Members)
Facts: Complainant obtained a temporary injunction against her husband restraining

him from contracting a second marriage but the suit was dismissed for
non-prosecution. Taking this opportunity, her husband remarried on 2.5.1985.
Respondent honestly admitted that he did not appear in the case on the said date and
hence the suit was dismissed.
Neither party led and produced any evidence. It found that there was no negligence on
the part of the Respondent in the non-prosecution of the case, but he was negligent in
not filing the restoration application. As such he was held guilty of misconduct and was
reprimanded. In the appeal the Respondent proved that evidence given by Complainant
that Respondent gave an opportunity to her husband to remarry was rejected by the
D.C.
Judgement: Therefore, the view of the D.C. of the S.B.C. that the Respondent was
negligent in not filing the restoration application was held to be not correct. The
Respondent was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him.

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

50 Casesdocx KKKK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Casesdocx KKKK

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

50 Casesdocx KKKK

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|20962035

Business administration (ICFAI Business School)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

1. Case: V.C Ranga Durai v. D Gopalan

2. N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shind.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

3. Case: Mohd. Ismail v. Balarathna

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

4. Case: John D Souza v Edward Ani.

Issue- Whether the act of the advocate amounted to professional misconduct?

Deliberate delay in filing of the suit

5. Case: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami v. Vishwanath D. Mukashikar,

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Issue- Does the act of the advocate amount to professional misconduct?

Manipulation of the judgement and the decree

Issue- Whether the advocate guilty of Professional misconduct?

Handing over of forged documents to the opposite party

7. Case: Pratap Narain v. Y.P. Raheja,

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

8. Gross negligence involving moral turpitude- In the matter of P an Advocate and

9. VP Kumaravelu v the Bar council of India.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

10. Breach of trust- Bapurao Pakhiddey v Suman Dondey.

11. Bribe- Purushottam Eknath Nemade v DN Mahajun

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Issue- Whether the trial should go on day-to day basis?

13. Misappropriation of amount paid- DS Dalal V State Bank of India.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Issue- Whether the Advocate guilty of Misappropriation and professional misconduct?

14. JS Jadhav v Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf And Ors.

15. Prahlad Saran Gupta V Bar council of India

Case no.: Appeal (civil) 3588 of 1984

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Bench: S.c. agrawal & g.b. pattanaik

16. Misappropriation of Decretal amount- KV Umre v Venubai

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Issue- Are the advocates guilty of Professional Misconduct?

19. Case: Allahabad Bank v. Girish Prasad Verma

20. Case: L.C Goyal v. Suresh Joshi

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

21. Sambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry,

Issue- Whether the Advocate guilty of Professional misconduct?

22. Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Citations- AIR 2002 SC 548, (2002) 1 UPLBEC 313

D. Contempt of Court and Improper behavior before Magistrate

23. Hikmat AliKhan v Ishwar Prasad Arya

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

Not appearing before the court deliberately and intentionally

24. Case: Smt. P. Pankajam v. B.H. Chandrashekhar.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

F. Appearing for both the sides

L) Forcing the procecution witness not to tell the truth.

27. Case: P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti and Anr.

Downloaded by Tanvi Sharma ([email protected])

advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi.

CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT DECIDED BY