Purchase of the property in dispute of the client

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

Facts: One Srikishan Dass died leaving behind extensive immovable properties. Claims to the said
properties were made by one Vidyawati claiming to be the sister of the deceased, one 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 advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi.

Held: Since the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint
within a period of one year and therefore the proceedings had been transferred to the Bar Council of
India under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act. 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.

Case: John D’souza v. Edward Ani

Facts: In this case the respondent Edward Ani lodged the complaint with the Karnataka Sate Bar
Council alleging that the appellant with whom the will executed by his mother in law Mrs. Mary
Raymond was entrusted with safe custody refuse to return that will in spite of two letters demanding
to hand over the will.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed breach of his professional duty and
found him guilty of profession misconduct

Allegations of defrauding and cheating aspirant loa-

nees
Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta vs Rameshchandra Vithaldas Sheth on 22 April,
1992(SC)

Facts:

The appellant was an Advocate practising in Bombay.

Respondent No.1 (the complainant) made a complaint to the
Bar Council of Maharashtra alleging professional misconduct
against the appellant. His case was that he was a proprietor
of a firm engaged in a business of manufacturing. He was in
need of financial accommodation and a financier impressed
upon him that on examination of his papers by a solicitors'
firm run by the appellant, he would be given loan. He was
also told that the appellant was also one of the investors.
The complainant on such representation agreed to get loan
through the financier. On inspection of properties of
the
complainant the financier told him that a loan upto Rs.7
lakh would be advanced to him provided he would pay at the
rate of 5-1/2% on the advance of amount of loan towards
legal and other expenses. In a meeting held at the residence
of the appellant in connection with the proposed loan the
appellant told the complainant that he was an advocate of a
certain firm and he worked only for the genuine financiers
and would look to the interests of the loan seekers. He also
told that he was himself a member of the internal group of
the financiers. The appellant induced the complainant to
part with certain money for legal expenses and in formed him
688
that out of 5-1/2% of the amount of loan required to be paid
by him by way of legal expenses the appellant would keep 3-
1/2% for the stamp duty payable to the Government. He also
told that the disbursement could be expedited only if the
complainant paid cash to the financier before certain date.
On the stipulated date the complainant paid RS.25,000 to the
financier. He also paid the balance of Rs.13,500 to
the
appellant. Thereafter the appellant made all attempts to
delay the disbursement and asked the complainant to pay
Rs.10,000 more which the latter paid. However, the proposed
loan was not disbursed and instead of it, the financier made
a complaint against the complainant in the Social Security
Branch.

Non filing of the case or filing of the case with nominal court fees
Case : Allahabad Bank v. Girish Prasad Verma
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.
Held : 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. The committee made it clear that legal profession is a noble profession and
its members must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation

Deliberate delay in filing of the suit

Case: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami v. Vishwanath D. Mukashikar
Facts: In this case the appellant advocate made a delay in filing in filing the suit and also made a
delay in moving the interim application due to which the complainant suffered huge losses. The
complainant gave two written notices to the to the appellant advocate for the return of the papers so
that he could engage separate lawyers but the appellant advocate did not respond. It was also
alleged by the complainant that the advocate did this deliberately in connivance with the other side.

Held: the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found him guilty of
professional misconduct and imposed punishment of suspension of licence for three years.

Suppression of material facts with intention to harass poor persons

Case: Smt. Sudesh Rani v. Munish Chandra Goel
Facts: In this case the respondent advocate filed suits for the eviction of the tenants by suppressing
the fact of an earlier compromise decree by which the tenants were declared as owners.The
respondent advocate should have disclosed the material facts since his wife and he himself were
involved in the compromise of the suits.
Held: The respondent advocate was held guilty of having committed professional as well as other
misconduct. The committee ordered that his licence to practice would be suspended for a period of
two years.

Manipulation of the judgement and the decree

Case: Surendra Nath Mittal v. Daya Nand Swaroop
Facts: In this case the respondent advocate made manipulation in the operative part of the
judgement and decree by adding the words “mai sood” i.e including interest. The respondent
advocate however denied the allegation and contended that he had not committed any offence.
Held: 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 The committee ordered for his suspension for one year.

Handing over of forged documents to the opposite party

Case: Pratap Narain v. Y.P. Raheja
Facts: In this case the complainant alleged that the respondent handed over him a forged stay order
while no stay order was passed by the court in the case. The respondent however pleaded that the
forged stay order was handed over to the complainant by his clerk.
Held: The committee after examining the facts, evidence etc., held that the respondent was guilty of
professional misconduct of serious nature as he had forged the order of the court. Consequently, the
Disciplinary committee ordered removal of his name from the roll maintained by the Bar Council of
Delhi.

Not appearing before the court deliberately and intentionally

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

Held: 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.

Defrauding the client by exploiting his/her illiteracy

Case: Vikramaditya v. Smt. Jamila Khatoon
The obtaining of the signature by the advocate on blank vakalatnama and blank water marked
papers for the purpose of defrauding the client’s amounts to the professional misconduct.

Advocate actively engaged in carrying other business

Case: Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain
Facts: The complainant was an advocate. He alleged that the respondent advocate was a practising
lawyer as well as was working as an editor, printer, and publisher of a weekly called “Aaj Ki Janata”.
Held: Rule 47 of BCI rules prohibits an advocate to be engaged personally in any business. The
respondent advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying on the business and his
conduct was take by the disciplinary committee as profession misconduct.

Advocate attending the court with fire arms

Case: UP Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra
Facts: In the case the advocate was attending the court with licence fire arm for the purpose of self
defence.
Held: It was held that such a conduct was inconsistent with the dignity of legal profession and
amounts to professional misconduct.
Refusal to return the will