Question 1: Which of the following governs the conduct of advocates?

Options:
(a) The rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
(b) The CPC.
(c) The Advocates Act, 1961.
(d) The rules framed by the various High Courts.
(e) All of the above.

Question 2: Which, among the following, is an advocate not prohibited from doing?
Options:
(a) Personally engaging in business.
(b) Being the managing director of a company.
(c) Being a full-time salaried employee of a company.
(d) Running for political office.
(e) Participating in the management of a business that she has inherited.

Question 3: Which of the following statements about the duties of advocates is least
accurate?
Options:
(a) An advocate must accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or any other
authorities.
(b) The fees charged by the advocate should be consistent with the advocate’s
standing at the Bar and the nature of the case
(c) If an advocate withdraws from an engagement, the advocate must refund any
part of unearned fee to the client.
(d) An advocate may never refuse to accept any briefs.
(e) An advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case in which an
advocate has reason to believe that she will be a witness.
Question 4: Which of the following statements about the duties of advocates to their
opponents is least accurate?
Options:
(a) An advocate must only communicate or negotiate with an opposing party
through the counsel representing the opposing party.
(b) An advocate must never communicate or negotiate with an opposing party at
all.
(c) An advocate must only communicate or negotiate with an opposing party
regarding the controversy, through the counsel representing the opposing
party.
(d) An advocate must never communicate or negotiate with an opposing party
regarding the controversy.
(e) None of the above.

Category B

Question 5: A inherited a family business from her father. A subsequently enrolled

as an advocate, and continued to manage the business. Has A violated the
Advocates’ Code of Conduct?
Principle: An advocate who has inherited, or succeeded by survivorship to a family
business may continue in the family business. An advocate may not, however,
personally participate in the management of such a business. (BCI Rules, Part VI,
Chapter II, Section VII, Rule 50)
Options:
(a) Yes, since A should have parted with the business’ assets as soon as she
inherited them.
(b) No, as long as she does not solicit business for her family business from other
advocates or clients.
(c) Yes, since A was personally involved in the management of the business.
(d) Yes, since A was also enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council.
(e) No, since this was a family business, and not a professional concern.

Question6: A was appearing as an advocate for B in a case involving the partition

of certain family property between B and his brother, C. B produced an affidavit
from D, which was critical to the case. The affidavit contained identification by the
advocate, A. C then filed an application to have A barred from the case, claiming that
A was a material witness in the case, since she could be called upon to prove the
identity of D. Can A be disbarred from the case?
Principle: A civil court has an inherent power to order a person to cease to appear as
an advocate, if the advocate has become a material witness, and a bona fide
application for withdrawal of the advocate is made. (S.151, CPC)
Options:
(a) Yes, A can be disbarred from the case, since she may be called upon as a
material witness to prove the identity of D.
(b) No, A cannot be disbarred from the case, since she has done nothing wrong
by identifying D in the affidavit, but rather, has helped her client collate
evidence.
(c) Yes, A can be disbarred from the case, since she had a personal interest in the
matter.
(d) No, A cannot be disbarred from the case, since she did not have a personal
interest in the matter.
(e) Yes, A can be disbarred from the case because she had acted in furtherance of
the opposing side’s case.

Question 7: A was appearing as an advocate for B in a case involving the recovery

of a debt owed by C to B. C agrees to settle the matter and sends a briefcase
containing the disputed sum to A’s chambers. In which of the following cases is A
not in violation of the BCI Rules?
Principle: Where an advocate receives any amount given by or on behalf of a client,
the advocate must inform the client, as early as possible, of the receipt.
Options:
(a) A informs B of the receipt of the money after fifteen days, as A was busy with
other matters in court for that time.
(b) A informs B of the receipt of the money after fifteen days, as A was
holidaying with his family during that time.
(c) A informs B of the receipt of the money after fifteen days, as A was not aware
of the briefcase having been sent to him until that time.
(d) A informs B of the receipt of the money after fifteen days, as A was travelling
to another city on work for that time.
(e) A should not have accepted money in a briefcase, so A is in violation of BCI
Rules in all of the cases above.
Bhaniya and his wife Smt. Galki were assaulted as a result of
which they received head injuries. Both of them were examined
by Dr. Raman Varma and he referred them to a Radiologist. Dr.
Mangal Sharma. Radiologist sent a report to the Station House
Officer that he found nothing abnormal in the X-ray plate of the
complainant Bhaniya but from the X-ray Plate of Smt. Galki he
suspected a fracture of the skull and suggested that he should
refer the matter to a Specialist. The appellant approached the
complainant with the X-ray plates taken by Dr. Sharma and
promised to get a favourable report 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 :
"Dear Doctor Sahib,
I am sending the man to You with X ray Plate. Your amount is
lying with me. I will come to Jalore in the evening and see You.
Please do his work and it should be done positively in his
favour.
Sd/
Chander Shekhar Soni."
Dr. Mangal Sharma sent another the Station House Officer
saying "There is evidence of fracture of the skull."

Answer à AIR 1983 SC1012

Problem - 1

The Complainant Urmila Devi has engaged Mr. Sita Ram Singh as her counsel for filing many
suits against her borrowers and several suits were decreed. He was paid court fees and
counsel’s fees and other expenses. It is alleged that the advocate used to withdraw decretal
amount from the court time to time without the consent and knowledge of the complainant.
The advocate has also concealed the real facts regarding withdrawal of decretal amount from
CCD. In the case of T.M. Pillai and Swami Lal, the advocate had not paid the full court fees in
court. It has further alleged that in July 1982, the complainant had handed over the original
documents and Rs560/- as expenses for filing of civil suit, similarly in Feb. 1983, the
complainant had handed over the original documents and Rs230/- as expenses for filing
another civil suit against one Mewalal. The non-applicant has neither given the information of
filing of these cases nor returned the files and misappropriated the amount. It was alleged that
the advocate had withdrawn the amount in the case of Govind Mochi, Dashrath Mochi and
Kandhilal from Tehsil court making the forged signature of the complainant but has not paid the
same to the complainant. A notice was sent to the advocate to return the amount and also the
entire file but he had neither return the amount nor the money.

• The advocate in reply of the notice has contended that

• Complainant through her father Mr. Jangi Lal was some times paying the court fee for
filing of the suit. And some times less court fee paid by her with a request to pay the
balance court fee in future before the court.

• He had never withdrawn the amount from CCD as stated. In the original pleadings it is
stated that under the instruction of client money was withdrawn and immediately has
been handed over to her in the Nazart of court.
 • He has never kept any money with him so he was not maintained any account.

• Complainant herself paid the deficit court fee of Rs500/ but later not paid.

PROBLEM – 2

• A regd. Society namely KKGUSS had engaged an advocate namely Sri J.S. Kulkarni to file
execution proceedings for execution of decrees obtained in its favour in different civil
suits from competent civil court.

• It has been complained against advocate that he has received different amounts
towards the different decree total amounting Rs10,500/- from different J/Ds and paid
only Rs1,200/-, Rs1800/- and Rs3000/- on three occasions. On repeated reminders he
paid Rs1000/- more but thereafter he has not paid a single penny even thereafter , till
date of filing of this complaint.

• Defence of Advocate à Total amount recovered by him was Rs8500/-, the amount so
recovered was paid to one Mr. Benhal by respondent advocate. There is no outstanding
due against the complainant. He has nor received professional fee from complainant
and only therefore false story of non-payment of amount has been made by the said
Benhal

• Society has given the names of different J/Ds, Number of Execution petitions, details of
different amounts received on different dates, in support certified copies were also
made available in this regard.

• It appears that total Rs9411.50/- was received in total . Receipts of Rs4000/- was paid
on different dates by the advocate to the complainant.

• Issues 1à Does the amount alleged to be received by the advocate has been accounted
for ?
• Issue 2 à How much amount the has been received by the advocate i.e Rs10,500/- as
alleged or it is less as claimed by the advocate?

• Issue 3 à What wrong may be done by the advocate and under what provisions of law?

• 26. Where moneys are received from or on account of a client, the entries in the
accounts should contain a reference as to whether the amounts have been received
for fees or expenses, and during the course of the proceedings, no Advocate shall,
except with the consent in writing of the client concerned, be at liberty to divert any
portion of the expenses towards fees.

• 27. Where any amount is received or given to him on behalf of his client the fact of
such receipt must be intimated to the client as early as possible.

• 28. After the termination of the proceeding the Advocate shall be at liberty to
appropriate towards the settled fee due to him any sum remaining unexpended out of
the amount paid or sent to him for expenses, or any amount that has come into his
hands in that proceeding.

• 29. Where the fee has been left unsettled, the Advocate shall be entitled to deduct,
out of any moneys of the client remaining in his hands, at the termination of the
proceeding for which he had been engaged, the fee payable under the rules of the
Courts in force for the time being, or by then settled and the balance, if any, shall be
refunded to the client.

• 30. A copy of the client’s account should be furnished to him on demand provided the
necessary copying charge is paid.

• Held that Rules of 23 to 30 of Section II of Chapter II of, Part IV of BCI Rules specifically
provide that an Advocate shall keep account of the client’s money entrusted to him and
accounts should show that amount received from clients or on his behalf of expences
incurred for him and debits made accounts of fee with respective dates and all other
necessary particulars.

• Where money was received for a client the enteries in the account should contain a
refrence as to whether the amounts were received for fees oe expences and during the
course of the proceeding no advocate shall except with the consent in writing of the
client divert any expence towards fee.
 • After termination of proceedings, advocate shall be at liberty to appropriate towards
the settled fee any sum remaining unexpended that had come into his hands. If the fee
were not settled an advocate can deduct money of the client remaining in his hands as
fees payable under Rules of court in force.

• Respondent advocate failed to discharge his professional duty to the client by neither
furnishing the accounts nor refunding the said amounts nor providing claim of settled or
unsettled fees payable by the client to him.

• Advocate is directed to be suspended for 1 years.

Problem – 3

• Prof. Krishnaraj Goswami had engaged an advocate namely Viswanath D. Mukasikar to

file a suit in Bombay High Court . He paid Rs29000/- in total at different points of time
as demanded by the appellant. Unfortunately the appellant advocate delayed in filing
the suit and did not pay full court fee and also delayed in moving interim application for
which he sustained huge loss. Prof. gave two written notices and requested for return
of papers and no objection so that he can engage separate lawyer. But the advocate did
not respond. The said advocate deliberately did this in connivance with other side.

Defence taken the plea à He received a sum of Rs29,000/- from Prof. but denying the other
allegations. Prof. himself instructed him to delay in filing of suit and he had instructed the
advocate to engage senior advocate and one J.I. Mehta was supposed to be engaged who
became ill and later succumbed to his illness. Then one Mr. Girish Desai was engaged. Out of
amount paid by the prof. Rs10,000/-was paid towards senior’s counsel fees. Regarding late
payment of court fee, he stated that his clerk by wrong reading/ provisions had affix less court
fee and later in Feb. 1994 rest court fee was affixed. So delay in fixing court fee on plaint was
bonafide mistake. Application for ad-interim was filed but no order was passed by the court. So
he denied the allegation of late filing of suit and relationship with other side.

• Advocate is guilty of professional misconduct.

• (i) Delay in filing of suit

• (ii) It was not proper on the part of advocate to hold the file.

• (iii) Plea of diverting the amount required for expenses towards court fees is against
the Rule 26 of BCI Rules .
 • (iv) It is well settled that an advocate can’t hold the file on the plea that he was not paid
his fees. The advocate can sue for recovery of fee but is no way is authorized to hold
back papers

• (v)The moment the client expresses that he wants no objection and his papers to
engage some other lawyer, the advocate is compelled to handover papers and no
objection memo notwithstanding the fact whether he was paid his fee or not.

• On the point of consultation of senior lawyer no forged receipt was filed but he has
been reprimanded and given warning not to repeat such type of mistake

• Advocate found guilty of delaying in filing suit à His license has been suspended for 3
years by SBC à In appeal he was reprimanded and not to repeat such mistake in future.

PROBLEM – 4

• Plea of Allahabad Bank à Bank has engaged Mr. J.P.Srivastava an advocate for filing 126
suits in civil courts and was paid the professional fee, court fee and other expenses. He
was handed over the original documents, securities, and Vakalatnama but in some of
the cases no suit was filed and falsely represented about having filed suits and about
also dates of hearing . Some cases were filed with nominal court fee of Rs1.50/- or Rs2/-
despite receiving full court fee. Advocate forged signatures of Branch Managers on
different applications affidavits and after dismissal of suits on account of non payment
of court fee he opposed application for restoration and wrongfully refused to return the
original documents and threatened with destruction of original records laying with him,
without consent of the Bank. The act of advocate caused loss of Rs13,00,000/- to the
Bank and misappropriated Rs4,38,403.24/- paid to him as court fee.

• Even after repeated notices the concerned advocate never appeared before the
Committee nor sent any appearance or any representation or tried to defend himself in
any way.

• Issues

• Whether issues to be framed case of ex-parte?

• What are the remedies available against ex-parte proceedings ?

• In the present case issues were framed by BCI.

 • Advocate is hold guilty of professional misconduct.

• Acted in violation of professional misconduct and prescribed standard of conduct and

BCI can not impose on him any less punishment.

• Hence he is directed to be debarred from practice. He has misappropriated the

aforesaid amount of Rs4,38,403.25/- which he should refund to the bank within a period
of 3 months. Bank is free to file a suit for compensation for loss caused by the advocate.

• The name of the advocate shall stand removed from roll of BSC. He is debarred to
practice anywhere as an advocate.

Problem – 5

• 11 different persons filed a complaint against Mr. Munish Chandra Goel, an advocate
alleging that they all are resident of Goyal Nagar, Moradabad. They have stated that one
Mr. Rama Kant Agarwal (father-in-law of the advocate) was the owner of certain plots of
land. An agreement for sale was entered into by Mr. Rama Kant with these 11 persons
through the advocate. Mr. Rama Kant was executed a Power of attorney in favour of his
daughter namely Smt. Kusum Lata. Subsequently Mr. Rama Kant died.

• The possession of the land was handed over to the respective persons after agreement
itself on which the advocate is one of the witness. At the time of execution of sale deed,
advocate started demanding more money and the suits for specific performance of
contract were filed by the complainant, all the suits were subsequently compromised
and decrees were passed in favour of complainants, in decrees complainant were
declared as owners by the court. Advocate himself signs on every compromise as an
advocate – Photocopies of the agreements & decreesàAnn.1 & 2 series.

• The advocate again started demanding Rs2 lakh from each complainant, notices were
served upon them showing them as tenants suppressing the truth à Photocopies of the
notices & Plaints à Ann. 3 & 4 series

• Advocate is misusing his position and harassing the complainant trying to extract money
from them, hence suitable action be taken against him.

• Point of defence à Rama Kant Agarwal was his father-in-law. And continued to be owner
of the land in question which is part of Plot No. 70 having area 1.22 acre. He was not
party to the transaction between late Rama kant and the complainant. He was not party
 to the power of attorney said to have been executed by late Rama Kant in favour of
Kusum Lata his daughter. Kusum Lata was not executed any agreement with his consent
or permission. In this situation only Kusum Lata or Rama Kant are answerable and not
the advocate in any circumstance.

• This complaint was filed only with a view to malign the image of advocate. The
complainant were never became the owner of the land in question. Suits are pending
against all the complainants for eviction. Whether suits are bogus have to be decided by
the court where they are pending.

• Money was never demanded by the advocate as alleged by complainant. His actions are
within his rights and areas as per professional ethics.

• Whether the advocate has worked as advocate in various suits in which compromise
and further decree have been prepared?

• Whether the advocate has received money on behalf of his father-in-law on any
occasion?

• Whether the advocate has demanded money from the complainants?

• Whether the suits for evictions filed by the advocate as alleged?

• Whether the present complaint are time barred?

• Whether the advocate has committed any professional misconduct as envisaged under
advocate’s act?

• Advocate has signed as witness on the agreements of sale of lands to the complainant
by his father-in-law.

• Advocate has received consideration money at the time of compromise in the 11 suits as
an advocate for the defendant Kusum Lata.

• Advocate has sent the legal notice for his client Kusum Lata to evict the premises.

• Advocate has filed eviction suits against the complainant for his client Kusum Lata

• Hence the advocate has failed in performing his duty towards the court by suppressing
facts of decrees which are known to him as conducting advocate in the earlier suits.

• Violation of Rule 35 of Sec. I of Ch. II of BCI Rules.

 • Order for suspension of licence for a period of 2 years with cost of Rs11000/- i.e.
Rs1000/- to each complainant.

• Fine to be paid within period of 2 month failing whichfurther suspension of one year.

Problem 6

• One Pratap Narain filed case before SBC, Delhi against Mr. Y.P. Raheja, advocate. à
There was a dispute between him and Roshanlal. Roshanlal wanted to divert the course
of drain water along eastern and southern walls of Pratap Narain. A police complaint
was lodged by Roshanlal against Pratap Narain. Police came and booked both the
parsons into jail. Later on compromise taken place. Subsequently, the Roshanlal again
started to divert the course of drain water there upon the Pratap Narain contacted with
the said advocate and who advised to file a civil suit with prayer of permanent
injunction against the Roshanlal. On 28-05-1991 he visited with the advocate to the civil
court case was drafter and typed and was waiting for filing then after some time the
advocate came and informed that suit has been filed and stay was also granted on
move. He may got the stay order within couple of days. On the next day i.e. on 29-05-
1991, he visited to court again and paid the balance fee, the advocate has provided him
the stay order and informed about the next day of hearing. He supplied the order of stay
to the police officials.

• On 27 – 7-1991, the police official informed him that order was not genuine, then he
visited the court and requested the advocate to inspect the file but advocate showed his
inability due to his heavy engagement of court work. Then he inspected the file with the
help of other advocate and found that every thing is wrong. Then he tried his level best
to contact him but he always found absent from his sitting place he visit his house but it
has been informed that he went to met with doctor.

• Then the Pratap Narain has filed an affidavit before the court stating every truth upon
which enquiry was setup. Court has called the advocate, the advocate appeared and
filed reply 1. he is at no fault rather his clerk has done these things. 2. He is suffering
from diabetes, hypertension etc. He want to psychiatrist as he suffering from alternative
cycles of depression and maniacy.

• Advocate handed over a forged & fabricated stay order to complainant, when no stay
order had been passed by the court in suit filed by him.
 • Respondent submitted that say order was handed over to the complainant by his clerk
who was warned and reprimanded by him.

• Held that Advocate is guilty of professional misconduct of serious nature. He has forged
the order of the court. Ordered removal of his name from roll maintained by the SBC.

• He is entitled to this extreme punishment and no lesser punishment can be imposed.

Problem – 7

Facts  M. Ram Mohan Rao who was as a senior of M. Veerabhadra Rao a practising advocate
at Hyderabad. He joined the chamber of his senior and at the relevant time he was working in
the chamber of his senior. Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was a tenant of the premises bearing
Municipal No, 3242 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, (Kingsway), Secunderabad of which
respondent Tek Chand son of Lala Moti Ram was the owner. Tek Chand, his wife Mohini and
son Subhash Chandra sold and conveyed the house in question by a deed of conveyance in
favour of Premlata wife of Sohan Lal Saloot and daughter of Hastimal Jain for a consideration of
Rs. 65,000/-.

As the sale was for a consideration of more than 50,000/- the vendor was required to
produce an Income-tax Clearance Certificate as required by S. 230 of the Income-tax Act, 1962
before the sale deed could be registered.

Before the alleged transaction of sale, a suit was filed by Tek Chand against Shri M. Ram
Mohan Rao, the tenant for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent etc. This suit had
ended in a decree and at the relevant time, an appeal preferred by Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was
pending.

To resume the narrative Tek Chand had already obtained the necessary Income-tax
clearance certificate on July 5, 1972. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the
Registrar of Conveyances asked for the Income-tax clearance certificate and respondent Tek
Chand said that on payment of the full consideration, the same will be produced. From thereon
the distressing events leading to the present case started.

 One Tek Chand filed a complaint No. 14 of 1974 under S. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961
before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh alleging that one Mr. M. Ram Mohan
Rao, advocate was a tenant of a house situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad.
 Tek Chand was agreed to be sold his house for Rs. 65,000/- to Premlata D/O Shri Hastimal
Jain and Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be completed within
a period of three months on the vendee paying the balance of consideration of Rs. 55,000/-.
The vendee did not pay the amount and Tek Chand alleged that he had cancelled the
agreement for sale.
 It was further alleged that as the consideration for sale was exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, the sale
deed cannot be registered unless an Income-tax clearance certificate is produced, but as the
balance of consideration was not paid, agreement to sell the house was cancelled.
 However as the vendee Premlata wanted to grab the house without paying the balance of
consideration, in order to get the sale deed registered, it was decided to get the Income-tax
clearance certificate and with this end in view an application purporting to be in the name
of the Tek Chand with his signature forged thereon bearing the date October 31, 1972 and
with an incorrect address was prepared. As an affidavit is necessary in support of the
application, the same was prepared on a stamp paper of Rs. 2/- with the signature of
respondent Tek Chand forged thereon.
 This affidavit was attested by the M. Veerabhadra Rao(M.V.Rao), an advocate practicing
with Ram Mohan Rao (the tenant of Tek Chand) authorised to attest affidavits. On the
strength of the forged documents, an Income-tax clearance certificate was obtained in the
name of the Tek Chand and the sale deed was got registered.
 It was alleged that the signature of respondent Tek Chand was attested by the M. V.Rao, the
junior of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao on being paid Rs. 300/-through one Mulchand, Munshi of
Lalchand, who is the uncle of the father of Premlata, the vendee. It was specifically averred
that Tek Chand neither signed the application for income-tax clearance certificate nor
swore the affidavit
 It was alleged that someone impersonated Tek Chand and this must be known to the
M.V.Rao because he knew respondent Tek Chand for many years prior to the attestation of
affidavit. It was alleged that a suit had been filed by Tek Chand against Mr. M. Ram Mohan
Rao for recovering the arrears of rent in the amount of Rs. 17,000/- and obviously to cause
damage to Tek chand, appellant the junior of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao attested a, forged
signature on the affidavit. The application with the affidavit annexed was submitted to the
Income tax department on the same day, and the Income-tax clearance certificate was
procured through Mulchand which was produced in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Secunderabad. Thus the vendee Premlata got the sale deed registered on the strength of
forged documents to which the Advocate M.V.Rao was a party and that wrongful loss was
caused to the Tek Chand in the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/-.
 It was alleged 'that this action constitutes a very serious professional misconduct and
necessary enquiry be made and appropriate action be taken.
 Points of defence 
 The appellant appeared and filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations. It was
specifically admitted that the affidavit on the strength of 'which the Income-tax clearance
certificate was obtained on Nov. 2, 1972 was attested by him.
 He states that either on 31-10-72 or on 1-11-72 the complainant (Tek Chand) came to this
advocate with an affidavit purporting to bear his signature and requested the advocate to
attest the same.
 The Complainant Tek Chand admitted the signature appearing on the affidavit as that of his
and therefore this respondent advocate attested the same.
 This advocate was aware that even prior to the date of attestation of the affidavit, the
Complainant had issued a notice to his Senior Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao attorning him to pay
rents to Premlata as the Complainant had sold the house to the said Premlata. It is
therefore, emphatically denied that this respondent received Rs. 300/- from Moolchand and
he attested a forged affidavit as alleged.
 It is only on the admission and representation made by the Complainant himself in person,
that this respondent attested the affidavit in good faith."

 Documents produced Ext. A-1  Affidavit dated 31-10-1972

 Ex. A-2 is the application addressed to the Income-tax Officer for issuing income-tax
clearance certificate.

 Ex. A-3 is the reply of Income-tax Officer dated March 8, 1973 to the inquiry made by the
respondent.

 Ex. A-4 is another letter from the Income-tax Officer dated March 20, 1973 to the
respondent

 Ex. A-1(a) and Ex: A-1(b) are the disputed signatures of the respondent on the affidavit and
the application respectively

 Ext B-1 & B-4  Evidence of Mr. S. Satyanarayan another junior of Mr. Man Mohan Rao,
M.V> Rao & others

 DC of SBC held that complainant Tek Chand never approached the appellant with Ex. A-1
and therefore, the explanation of the appellant that he attested the affidavit on the
statement made by the respondent that it bears his signature cannot be accepted. The
Committee concluded that the attestation of Ex. A-1 amounts to witnessing the fact that the
 deponent affirmed the truthfulness and genuineness of what was stated in the affidavit and
signed in his presence, but this would be untrue without the presence of deponent Tek
Chand and therefore, the endorsement becomes false and rendered the attestation invalid.

 The Committee concluded that the advocate attested Ex. A-1 knowing that the
complainant had not sworn the affidavit in his presence nor was it signed in his presence by
the Tak Chand and therefore, this act of attestation of the affidavit giving a misleading
information is improper and comes within the mischief of professional misconduct and
contrary to the norms of the professional etiquette.

 The State Committee also concluded that on account of this misconduct on the part of the
advocate , income-tax clearance certificate was obtained and therefore, the advocate was
guilty of professional misconduct. Having found the appellant guilty of serious misconduct,
namely, attesting an affidavit which appears to be a forged one and which was used to
obtain an unfair advantage by Premlata by obtaining Income-tax clearance certificate on the
strength of Ex. A-1 which did not appear to be genuine to the Committee, and which caused
wrongful loss to the complainant, the Committee developed cold feet and imposed a
ludicrously paltry punishment of reprimand which is no punishment stricto sensu.

 Advocate preferred appeal before BCI  No. of Case is D. C. Appeal No. 6 of 1976 before
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.('Appellate Committee' for short). The
appellate Committee held that the explanation of the appellant that he attested the
affidavit on the strength of the statement made to him by the respondent that the affidavit
bears his signature and that there was nothing improper in attesting the affidavit on the
acknowledgement made by the deponent about his signature cannot be accepted because
the affidavit in question categorically states that the party deponent put his signature
before the attesting advocate, when it was common ground that it was not so done and the
affirmation by the advocate clearly amounts to a false statement.

 The Appellate Committee then became facetious and observed that it would take a serious
and strict view of the matter and hold that an advocate should not be a party to such an
irregular procedure amounting to a false declaration by him.

 After so observing the Committee affirmed the order made by the State Committee
imposing the punishment of reprimand and conveying a warning to the appellant that he
should be careful in future in such matters.
 The Appellate Committee then proceeded to accept one contention on behalf of the
learned advocate appearing for the appellant and expunged the observation of the State'
Committee that the appellant had not attested Ext. A-1 in the presence of the complainant
and that this act of the appellant was improper and comes within the mischief of
professional misconduct and contrary to the norms of professional etiquette on the ground
that these observations were uncalled for especially in view of the fact that the Committee
disbelieved the evidence of P. W. 2 on the question of payment of Rs. 300/- and
presentation of affidavit by Mool Chand.

 Advocate, M. V. Rao preferred appeal before Supreme court of India S. 38 of the Advocates
Act, 1961. Tek Chand filed Cross objection. Advocate (appellant) filed rejoinder stating that
under Advocate’s Act 1961, there is no provisions of filing cross objection It was submitted
that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order of the State Committee or the Appellate
Committee, it was open to him to prefer an appeal but that having not been done, the cross
objections cannot be entertained.

 Question formulated before the Hon’ble Court  “whether the appellant, an enrolled
advocate, who was authorised to Attest an affidavit that can be used in civil or criminal
proceedings committed impropriety in attesting an affidavit which attestation would imply
that the deponent subscribed his signature to the affidavit in his presence after taking the
requisite oath that ought to be administered to him because there is no dispute that an
affidavit is a sworn statement of the deponent.”

Problem – 8

"In the matter of 'A' an Advocate"

Facts 

*An advocate Mr. A was enrolled as an advocate of the Allahabad High Court in December
1958. In January 1961 he was enrolled as an advocate of Supreme Court of India this Court. In
March of 1962, the Registrar of Supreme Court of India received a letter, marked 'Secret', from
the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Department of Law and Judiciary, to
the effect that the ''Advocate on Record" of the Supreme Court had addressed a postcard,
dated January 1, 1961 to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra, which "constitutes a
gross case of advertisement and solicitation for work".
* The original postcard was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be
placed before the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to
their Lordships may deem fit and proper.

* The postcard, contains the followings:-

"TRILOK SINGH ARORA, Advocate on Record.

Supreme Court, Office and Residence B-9, Model Town,

Delhi-9.

Dated 19-1-61.

Dear Sir,

Jai Hind.

Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as
amended up to date) to appoint an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court as according to
this rule 'no advocate other than an advocate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter
unless he is instructed by an Advocate on Record'.

You might have got an Advocate on Record in this Court but I would like to place my
services at your disposal if you so wish and agree.

Hoping to be favoured. Thanks,

Yours sincerely,

Sd: Trilok Singh Arora,

To

The Minister of Law,

Government of Maharashtra,

Bombay."

When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice; he directed the Registrar informally to
enquire from the Advocate concerned whether the postcard in question had been written by
him and bore his rubber stamp and signature.

 The Registrar called him, and in answer to his queries the Advocate admitted that the
postcard bore his rubber stamp and signature and that it had in fact, been dispatched by
 him. He also informed the Registrar that he had addressed similar postcards to other
parties. The Advocate added that he did not realise that in addressing those postcards
he was committing any wrong or breach of etiquette.
 The Chief Justice, on receiving the aforesaid information, placed the matter before a
Committee of 3 Judges of this Court, under R. 2 O. IV-A. The Committee considered the
matter referred to it a Tribunal of three members of the Bar, Shri Bishan Narain and Shri
A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocates, and Shri I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with Shri
Bishan Narain as its President, for holding the necessary enquiry into the alleged
conduct of the Advocate.

 The three advocates committee sent notice to advocate and in reply advocate chose to
behave in a most irresponsible way by alleging that

 1. The complaint in question by the Government of Maharashtra "is false, mala fide and
misconceived".

 2. He denied that he had written the letter in question, which he characterised as "the
work of any miscreant".

 3. He added further that even if it were proved that the letter in question had been
written by him, a mere perusal of it would show that there was nothing unprofessional
or otherwise objectionable in it,

 4. He added further that "certainly it is not solicitation of work if one inquires from any
person whether it requires or wishes and agrees to have the services of another
advocate".

 The Advocate was examined as witness on his own behalf and the Tribunal put the
postcard to him. The following questions by the Tribunal and answers by the Advocate
will show the determined way in which he denied what he had admitted to the
Registrar.

 "Tribunal : This postcard which has been brought to the notice of the Court purports
to be from you. Is this the postcard which you have written?

Witness : No.

 Tribunal : Has it not gone from your office?

 Witness : No. There is no doubt it bears the seal of my office, but it has not been
affixed by me.
 Tribunal : You say it does bear your name and that the rubber stamp which appears
is of your office but that it has not been affixed by you.
Witness : Yes.

 Tribunal : Is the hand-writing which one finds on this Postcard your hand-writing?
Witness : No.
 Tribunal : And the signature which is at the foot of the letter, you say, is not your
signature.
Witness : No, it is not mine.''

 The Tribunal compared the signature of advocate and present on the postcard and
found admitted writing in identical terms, given by him in Court.
 The Tribunal then confronted him with his admissions made to the Registrar, as
aforesaid, before the proceeding started. The following questions and answers will
further indicate is attitude;

 "Tribunal : In what respects do you find any difference between your normal
signature and this signature (signature on the postcard is shown to him).

Witness : It appears to be like my signature, but it is not my signature. Signature on

Ex.A is not my signature.

 Tribunal : In connection with this postcard, did you see the Registrar (Supreme
Court) ?
Witness : Yes he called me.
 Tribunal : When ? Do you know the date ?
Witness : I do not remember.
 Tribunal : Did you say anything to him ?
Witness : I did not make any statement. He showed me the postcard. I told him, as
I said here, that I had not written it; somebody else might have written it.
 Tribunal : Did you admit before the Registrar that this letter was written by you ?
Witness : I did not admit it, but he told me that if I admitted it, the matter, might be
hushed up.
 Tribunal : Did You say to the Registrar that you did not realise that in so doing you
were doing any thing wrong.?
 Witness : No. I did not say anything
 Tribunal : Do you want to produce any evidence ?
Witness : No, because I have not done anything; so, I do not want to produce any
evidence.Even if it is found that I have written the postcard, even then on merits, there
is nothing in this Case".

 Finding that the Advocate was adamant in his denial that he wrote the postcard or that
he had made any statement before the Registrar, the Tribunal called the Registrar of
Supreme Court of India as a witness and examined him on solemn affirmation.

 The Registrar gave his evidence and fully supported his previous report that the
Advocate had made those admissions before him.

 After recording the evidence, oral and documentary, the Tribunal made the report that
in spite of stout denial by the Advocate concerned, the Tribunal was satisfied that the
postcard in question had been written by him.

 The Tribunal was also of opinion that the Advocate did not realise that in writing the
postcard he was committing a breach of professional etiquette and of professional
ethics.

 It also remarked that it was unfortunate that the Advocate chose to deny the authorship
of the postcard.

 The findings of the Tribunal, along with the evidence and record of the case, have been
placed before Court.

 The Advocate, on notice, has appeared before court and court have heard him. Before
court also the Advocate first took up the same attitude as he had adopted before the
Tribunal, but on being pressed by the Court to make a true statement as to whether he
had written the postcard and had admitted before the Registrar that he had done so, he
answered in the affirmative.

 It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Advocate had addressed the letter
aforesaid to the Government of Maharashtra, soliciting their briefs; that he had
admitted to the Registrar of this Court that he had written the postcard and other such
postcards to other parties, and that he did so in utter disregard of his position as an
Advocate of this Court.
  It is equally clear that his denial of having written the postcard, and of having
subsequently admitted it to the Registrar, was again in utter disregard of truth.

 He has, in this Court, condemned himself, as a liar and as one who is either ignorant of
the elementary rules of professional ethics or has no regard for them.

 In our opinion, the Advocate has mischosen his profession. Apparently he is a man of
very weak moral fibre. If he is ignorant of the elementary rules of professional ethics, he
has demonstrated the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of
the profession of law. If he knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even
then wrote the postcard in question, he is a very unworthy member of the learned
profession. In any view of the matter, he does not appear to be possessed of a high
moral caliber, which is essential for a member of the legal profession. If anything, by
adopting the attitude of denial which has been demonstrated to be false in the course of
the proceedings before the Tribunal, he has not deserved well of the court ever in the
matter of amount of punishment to be meted to him for his proved misconduct.

 In our opinion, he fully deserves the punishment of suspension from practice for five
years. This punishment will give him enough time and opportunity for deciding for
himself, after deep deliberation and introspection whether he is fit to continue to be a
member of the legal profession.

 In our view he is not. Let him learn that a lawyer must never be a liar.

AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 1337

Problem – 9

The Complainant namely Smt. Jamila Khatoon has purchased 22 decimal of Plot No. 82/3
situated in village Konia, Pergana Dehat Amanant, District – Varanasi, U.P. from its owner
namely Ram Dhani by a regd. sale deed dated 05-07-1971. This land was of special significance
to her as it was very near to her residence and was of more utility. But with a view to purchase
the said land she sold her Plot No. 22 of village Salarpur admeasuring 58 decimal of land to Ram
Dhaniby sale deed dated 09-07-1971.
It has alleged that advocate of Smt. Jamila got signature on blank Vaklatnama & on blank
watermarked paper, she also handed over the original sale deed to her trusted counsel Mr.
Vikramaditya to got the said land mutated in her name.

But instead of filing a petition for mutation, the learned advocate has filed a suit on behalf of
his father namely Mr. Jhoolan Yadav against Smt. Jamila Khatoon “for declaration for the sale
deed dated 05-07-1971 in favour of Jamila Khatoon was a benami transaction and his father
Jhoolan Yadav was the actual owner. In this view of the matter the advocate misutilised the
Vakalatnama and the blank paper signed by the complainant and filed a compromise and
obtained a decree in favour of his father Jhoolan Yadav and as well as the original sale deed was
also misused.

After getting knowledge of this fraud played against her, Smt. Khatoon applied for setting a
side the said order. The advocate denied his conduct every where.

D.C. Appeal No. 21/ 1996 dt. 21-09-1998

BSC  It has been held that the advocate who was supposed to act for the complainant who
entrusted to file the case of mutation did not file the same and he committed misconduct so as
to benefit his own father and consequently himself.

It is a case of where the documents which were handed over for filing a mutation case had
been misutilised for obntaining the compromise in favour of the advocate’s father.

Punishment  Suspension from practice for a period of 5 years though more severe
punishment could be imposed.

Problem – 10

Saidur Rehman, engaged Mr. N. B. Mirzan, as his Advocate in an obstructionist notice issued to
him by the Presidency Small Cause Court, Bombay, in R. A. E. Suit No. 2491 of 1961. Mr.
Rahman had been introduced to the Advocate by one Noor Mohammed who was a client of the
advocate. At the time of his engagement, no fees as such were paid, but a sum of Rupees 190/-
was demanded by the advocate for Court-fee stamps and that amount was paid to the
advocate. Thereafter, on 26th April, 1962, the advocate demanded from Mr. Rahman's
wife,Khurshid Begum, a sum of Rs. 975/- on the representation that the amount was required
for deposit in the above suit by way of rent. A Receipt was issued by the advocate for this
amount and it is Ext. A. On 16th August, 1962 the advocate demanded a further sum of Rs.
250/- representing that this amount was necessary for payment to some Judge or officer for
getting the rent bill transferred in the name of Mr. Rahman in respect of the premises which
were the subject-matter of the above suit. In respect of this payment also, the advocate issued
a Receipt dated 16th August, 1962 which is Ext. B. The obstructionist notice was discharged on
13th September, 1962, the order being in favour of Mr. Rahman.

Thereafter, the landlord filed suit No. 3402 of 1963 in the City Civil Court, Bombay,
against Mr. Rahman and his brother for ejectment and mesne profits. In this suit also, the
advocate was engaged by Mr. Rahman as his Advocate. A written statement was filed admitting
that no rent had been paid by Mr. Rahman to his landlord from May, 1961 onwards. In view of
this admission, the City. Civil Court passed an order directing Mr. Rahman to deposit in Court
the amount due for arrears of rent from May, 1961 to September, 1963. This order was passed
on 25th September, 1963. The amount was to be paid within two months from that date. Since
Mr. Rahman's wife had already paid Rs. 975/- to the advocate on 26th April, 1962 and the
amount was more than sufficient for making the deposit in accordance with the order of the
City Civil Court, Mr. Rahman remained under the impression that the deposit would be made by
the advocate in due course. In January, 1964, the advocate gave a notice to Mr. Rahman to
come with the money for the purposes of deposit and this started the whole trouble, ending
with the complaint by Mr. Rahman to the State Bar Council on 27th October, 1964. It appears
that, before filing this complaint, notices were exchanged between the parties and a settlement
was brought about between the advocate and Mr. Rahman and, under this settlement, the
advocate undertook to pay to Mr. Rahman Rs. 1,000/- by installments of Rs. 150/- per month.
The advocate sent the first installment of Rs. 150/- by money order on 11th October, 1964. The
case of the advocate in respect of this money order, however, was that the money order had
been sent to Mr. Rahman, as Mr. Rahman had asked for a loan and the advocate took pity on
him in spite of the strained relations between the parties.

Problem - 11

The Complainant Surendranath Mittal filed a complaint against advocate Dayanand Swarup
alleging that Dayanand Swarup and his father Shri Bhagwat Swarup filed a suit against the
complaint for recovery of an amount of Rs148/- for use and occupation of an accommodation
in tenancy of the complainant. Bhagwat Swarup died in the year 1970 and his heirs were
brought on record . Dayanad substituted in the litigation and adopted the means which cannot
be said to be honourable.

The suit was decreed exparte on 27-05-1975 and a decree was drawn. Subsequent to
prepration of decree Dayanand had made interpolation in the judgment & decree by adding
word “Mai Sood” either in his own handwriting or otherwise caused to be added these words.
These two words added in the operative portion of the judgment and so also in the decree in
one and the same handwriting and it is not in the handwriting of the Presiding Officer Shri
S.K.Shukla or in the handwriting of the clerk concerned Mr. Anand Swarup Sharma who scribed
the decree and was working as Reader in the court of II Munsiff Magistrate, Bulandshashr.

It was held that the respondent has committed misconduct by interpolation by adding words
“including interest”. He has been punished to pay the cost of Rs3000/- + Suspension for 1 year
from practice.

Conclusion 

Interpolation in the records of the court without permission amounts to misconduct.

Problem – 12

Complaint namely Smt. Farida Choudhary alleged that she is the employee of M/s Steel
Authority of India., Guwahati residing at Guwahati. One advocate namely Dr. Achut Kumar
Thakuria happened to be his neighbour. He filed a case against Farida and her husband U/S 504,
506 & 511 IPC on 20-08-1990 in the court of learned CJM, Kamrup. IN the said case final report
has been submitted. In the said case both accused were discharged on 09-10-1990 from
charges.

On 08-10-1990 the advocate has written a letter to the Branch Manager M/S Steel Authority of
India informing the pendency of case before the learned court. The contents of the letter is like
this “ Smt. Farida Choudhary was an accused in Police Station case No. 291/ 90 U/S 504 and
506 IPC and she surrendered to the CJM, on 22-09-1990. Next date fixed on 08-10-1990. This
was for information and necessary action.”
Complainant also produced series of letters marked as Exhibit A1 to A-5 written under the
handwriting of advocate in which vulgar & obscene language were used for the complainant.

Complainant also produced two summons sent to her and her husband Ext. B1 to B-2, in the
handwriting of advocate.

Complainant also produced the report of handwriting expert Ext. C.

It has been alleged that advocate has filed a false case against her. He wrote letter to her
employer only with a view to harm her reputation in her department and writing letter to the
complainant containing vulgar and obscene language with remarks, sketches and pictures in his
own handwriting.

Held  Advocate is author of obscene letters, obscene figures, and his act is unbecoming and
as an advocate and he has rendered himself liable to disciplinary action of punitive nature. He
failed to discharge his duties as an officer of court as well as a responsible person of society, his
conduct entails him to punishment.

Guilty of Professional misconduct and suspend from practice for a period of 4 month with cost
of Rs10000/- in case not paid suspension shall continue for additional period of 1 year.

Conclusion  Advocate should not misutilized his position and he must not writ unnecessary
and un called for letters. Try to avoid filing false and fabricated cases for your own.

Problem – 13

Paltan Mallah was the accused of murder of Shankar Guha Niyogi in the night of 27 th/ 28th Sept.
1991. Allegation upon Paltan was that he was hired by Sri Mool CHand Shah to commit murder
of Trade Union Leader namely Shankar Guha Niyogi. Paltan was awarded capital punishment by
the trial court and was sentenced to death along with 7 others from the court of learned
Sessions Judge DUrg, M.P.. Mr. R. N. Tiwari was an advocate who was engaged by accused
Paltan Shah in a trial court. Accused Paltan was preferred appeal before High court.

In the Memo of appeal specific plea was taken that his client Mr. Paltan was innocent and even
during the trial case advocate argues on various dates that Paltan was innocent and falsely
implicated in the aforesaid case. This argument was taken place in the High Court on 08-09-
1997 and argument of appellant Paltan concluded on 16-09-1997 on both the dates the
advocate argued that his client, Paltan was not guilty and was completely innocent.

All of a sudden on 17-09-1997 advocate Mr. Tiwari had filed a writ petition in the High
Court of M.P. along with his personal affidavit on behalf of the accused which contains the
following materials

Para 5.2  That respondent no. 4 is a millionaire and director of Simplex Group of
Industries, while Kailash Pati Kedia was another one of the directors of Kediya Industries., These
two persons with the aid of Chandra kant Shah, Gayan Prakash Mishra and Abhay Singh has
entered into a conspiracy for elimination of the Petitioner had taken advantage thereof and
without disclosing the name of the person to be assassinated falsely promised him that in case
he shoots the person, he would be paid Rs1 lakh, the petitioner being a poor became greedy
and accepted the proposal in the year 1991. Before execution Rs20,000/- was paid to him but
after execution of work they have not paid the rest money, they became dishonest and did not
pay the rest money to the petitioner.

Para 5.3  Had it been made known to him through the Respondent no. 4 or Kedia or
any other person that his name is Shankar Guha Niyogi, the petitioner would never execute the
work for the reasons that the deceased was just like god to the poor and the downtrodden
classes of the society, especially Chhatisgarh region.

Points put before the advocate in DC of SBC 

Whether you have sworn the affidavit in the present case or not and as to when you
were instructed by your client to swear the affidavit?

12-09-1997  He got instruction to swear affidavit

16-09-1997  He argued that his client is innocent.

17-09-1997  He filed writ for better treatment in jail.

Paltan  Changed his lawyer after getting knowledge about this fact. He denied also
that he has

given such instruction to his lawyer or even confessed his guilt.

 Committee put specific question that whether there was any threat upon him to
file such affidavit but he always denied and stick on his stand that Paltan has instructed
him to do so.

Committee hold that 

No prudent person can believe the statement of advocate that too when Paltan
Mallah filed the application for changing his counsel.

Hold Guilty of Professional misconduct

Punishment  Not a fit man to be retained in legal profession. Awadred

punishment with cost of Rs5000/-

that for better treatment in jail, wherein he has made statement admitting therein that
it was accused to who shot dead the deceased. No written instructions by the accused to file
such writ application but in the said writ affidavit was swarn by the advocate which was not
permissible in any view of the matter.

It is never the practice to swear the affidavit by the advocate on behalf of the clients.

Problem – 14

Facts of this case 

Appellant has been practicing as an advocate mostly in the Courts at Bhopal, after enrolling
himself as a legal practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. According to him,
he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. ('Bank',
for short) in 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding
years. He was also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.
However, the said retainership did not last long. On 17-7-1993 the Bank terminated the
retainership of the appellant and requested him to return all the case files relating to the Bank.
Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a consolidated bill to the Bank showing
an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank towards the legal remuneration
to which he is entitled. He informed the Bank that the files would be returned only after setting
his dues.

Correspondence went on between the appellant and the Bank regarding the amount, if
any, payable to the appellant as the balance due to him. Respondent Bank disclaimed any
liability outstanding from them to the appellant. The dispute remained unresolved and the case
bundles never passed from Advocate’s hands. As the cases were pending the Bank was anxious
to have the files for continuing the proceedings before the courts/tribunals concerned. At the
same time the Bank was not disposed to capitulate to the terms dictated by the appellant
which they regarded as grossly unreasonable.

A complaint was hence filed by the Managing Director of the Bank, before the State Bar
Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3-2-1994. It was alleged in the complaint that appellant is guilty
of professional misconduct by not returning the files to his client.

In the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he admitted that the
files were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files by exercising his right
of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.

The complaint was then forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council. The State Bar Council failed to dispose of the complaint even after the expiry of one
year. So under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act the proceedings stood transferred to the Bar
Council of India. After holding inquiry the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India
reached the conclusion that appellant is guilty of professional misconduct. The Disciplinary
Committee has stated the following in the impugned order :

"On the basis of the complaint as well as the documents available on record we are of the
opinion that the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and thereby he is liable for
punishment. The complainant is a public institution. It was the duty of the Respondent to return
the briefs to the Bank and also to appear before the committee to revert his allegations made in
application dated 8-11-95. No such attempt was made by him."

Appeal has been preferred U/S 38 before Supreme court of India, learned counsel for
the appellant contended that the failure of the Bar Council of India to consider the singular
defence set up by the appellant i.e. he has a lien over the files for his unpaid fees due to him,
has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Bank contended that there was no fee payable to the
appellant and the amount shown by him was on account of inflating the fees. Alternatively, the
respondent contended that an advocate cannot retain the files after the client terminated his
engagement and that there is no lien on such files.
Help  Think on the line of

Question  Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
the client?

Attorney's lien - Advocate has no lien over litigation files for his unpaid fees files entrusted to
Advocate by client - Are not 'goods bailed' or 'saleable goods'.

That apart, the word "goods" mentioned in Section 171 is to be understood in the sense in
which that word is defined in the Sale of Goods Act. It must be remembered that Chapter-VII of
the Contract Act, comprising Sections 76 to 123, had been wholly replaced by the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930. The word "goods" is defined in S. 2(7) of the Sale of Goods Act. Thus understood
"goods" to fall within the purview of S. 171 of the Contract Act should have marketability and
the person to whom it is bailed should be in a position to dispose it of in consideration of
money. In other words the goods referred to in S. 171 of the Contract Act are saleable goods.
There is no scope for converting the case files into money, nor can they be sold to any third
party.

Problem - 15

Mr. A.K Ajoy is an advocate practicing in Sitapur High Court since 18 years. He is
legal advisor also in a company namely “Pluto” since early days of his practice. A
Company suit has been filed against the said company namely Pluto by Mr.
Mohnan in the year 2001. During the pendency of the suit, the court vide order
dated 27-04-2005 appointed Mr. Ajoy as receiver of the said company to look after
the affairs of the said company till disposal of the suit. Mr. Ajoy has collected Rs5
lakh from the Directors of Pluto Company and permit him to take goods from the
company’s godown and kept this money in his saving bank account. He has
misrepresented this fact to the court and parties to the suit.
Problem - 16

Complainant was the co-owner with two others of certain premises of which one of
the tenants was M/s. Hindustan Electric and Radio Corporation. He, together with
the other co-owners, had filed suits Nos. 840 of 1961. Suit No. 840 of 1961 was, was
withdrawn on 19th September, 1963, with liberty to file a fresh suit. On or about
10th February, 1964, the Advocate concerned, L. D. Jaisinghani, took Rs.350/- from
the complainant for filing the fresh suit in the Bombay City Civil Court and gave the
complainant a copy of the plaint in which No. 1040 of 1964 was given as the number
of the new suit. The complainant, after waiting for a few years made casual
enquiries from the Advocate as to when Suit No. 1040 of 1964 would come up for
hearing. The Advocate used to tell him that it would come up any day during 1969 to
1970. The two co-owners sold their shares in the building to the complainant on
24th November, 1970 and 4th January, 1971, respectively, so that he his request to
his advocate L. D. Jaisinghani, amendment of the plaint and also apply to the Court
for payment of rents. The Advocate agreed to do this The Advocate, L. D. Jaisinghani,
then told the complainant that the matter would be heard on 20th April, 1971, at 12
noon, before the Judge Mr. Kattal. On 20th April, 1971, on enquiry from the office of
the Court, the complainant learnt No. 1040 of 1964 was a fictitious reference given
by the Advocate of a suit which was never filed by him. It turned out to be another
suit filed by another person through another Advocate. The complainant alleged
that the Advocate had thus demonstrated that he had committed a breach of trust
and faith and cheated the complainant by fraudulent means and was guilty of
serious professional misconduct.