PYR - 10 BCI PE Cases

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2271/1998

BETWEEN:
L.C.Goyal ………Appellant
Vs.
Mrs. Suresh Joshi ………Respondent/Defendant.
1. Appeal :
An appeal is filed against the defendant in respect of
Misappropriation of amount of Rs. 25,102/- taken as court fee.
2. Notice:
A notice was served by the appellant to the other party for refunding the
amount but the appellant advocate after realizing his mistake issued a
cheque of Rs.38,000/-.
3. Reply in Affidavit:
The reply to the notice was in written form as a written statement and by
issuing a cheque of Rs.38, 000/-.
4. Facts of the case:

When the complainant realized about the misappropriation. She
informed the advocate. The Advocate gave a cheque for an amount of Rs.
38,000/- which was dishonored twice due to insufficient funds. The
complainant then sent a notice dated 9/6/1998 which remained un-replied.
Under such circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before State Bar
Council since the said complaint could not be decided within the stipulated
time, so it stood transferred to Bar Council of India.
5. Issues:
a. Whether the appellant received Rs. 25,102/-.
- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

b. Whether the cheque issued was dishonored.
c. Whether the signature was forged.
6. Evidence:
In valuation, of the plaint it was found that some pages were submitted
under the signature of the appellant without the knowledge of the
complainant.
In the first instance, the suit given in the plaint originally filed was purposely
kept vague, so that the complainant should not know about the court fee and
it was also found that as the advocate counted that the signature has been
forged, the signature was not actually forged.
7. Witness:
As a witness or proof of the case, the advocate has submitted various
documents before the Hon’ble Court.
8. Examination:
Before the Bar Council of India, the complainant examined herself as well as
got exhibited various documents. On examination the advocate denied the
allegations that she received a sum of Rs. 25,102/- towards payment of court
fee and also denied his signature and alleged that his signature were forged.
In fact, the FIR was lodged over the alleged forgery of the signature, clearly
shows what the signature was not forged.
9. Order:
The Supreme court modified the order of the State Bar Council of suspending
the appellant’s license to practice for a period of 5 years by reducing it to2
years and half and also provided the appellant to deposit interest of
Rs.38,000/- W.e.f 31/3/1998 and the payment of money to the plaintiff @
6.9% per annum.
10. Decree:

A decree was passed in their case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pay the
amount along with Interest to the appellant and also by reducing the
punishment imposed on the defendant by the State Bar Council.
11. Judgement:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave judgment mentioning to reduce the
time period of license of practicing from 5 years to 2 and half years.
12. Personal Opinion:
In my view, Legal practice is known for having high tradition and has been
serving the needs of the society for a very long time. Thus, as a member of
this profession, it is expected to uphold this tradition and serve the society
with sincerity and honesty.

Between:
Harish Chandra Tiwari …….Appellant

Vs.
Baiju ……..Respondent/Dependent
1. Appeal :
An appeal was filed by the advocate against the order passed by Disciplinary
Committee against him for professional misconduct. The appeal was filed Under
Section 38 of the Advocate’s Act, 1961.
2. Notice:
A notice was issued by Bar Council of India to the appellant which had imposed a
punishment of suspending the advocate from practicing for a period of 3 years.

The reply to the notice was filed in a written statement form for the complaint filed
by the complaint against the advocate.
4. Facts of the Case:
A complaint was filed by Mr. Baiju against the advocate. The appellant advocate was
enrolled as an advocate with Bar Council of India. Respondent Baiju engaged him
in a land acquisition case in which Baiju was claiming compensation. The appellant
applied for realizing the amount and withdraw the same on 02/09/1989. But he did
not return or informed the client about the same. When the client came to know
about it he informed the advocate and later filed a complaint with State Bar Council,
where professional misconduct on part of the advocate was proved and the bar
council ordered suspension from practice.
5. Issues:
a. Whether it is breach of trust by an advocate.
b. Whether is he liable to be punished for breach
c. Whether the punishment of the appellant is to be raised, keeping in view the
different type of punishment envisaged in the act.
6. Evidence:
The finding of the Disciplinary committee held that the advocate was guilty of
professional misconduct on grounds of breach of trust for forging of the affidavit.
7. Witness:
The respondent in examination admitted that the affidavit was gorged and
fabricated by the advocate.
8. Examination:
When the advocate was examined by the State Bar Council, he admitted to be
counsel of the respondent. He also produced an affidavit stating that a compromise
has been arrived between him and his client and no further action was required.
9. Order:
The supreme Court disposed the appeal by imposing the punishment of removal of
the name of the advocate from the roles of the advocate.
10. Decree:
The court has passed the decree against the advocate.
11. Judgment:

In the present case, the misappropriation remained unabated even after disciplinary
proceedings. The misconduct of the advocate became more aggravated when he
determined to forge an affidavit in the name of his client which he produced to
defrand his client and to receive the amount which was found out by the Disciplinary
committee.
The advocate being a part of legal profession should have not misappropriated his
client’s money. Thus, the order passed by the Supreme Court in my opinion is
appropriate.

Between:
Vikas Deshpande………..Appellant
Vs.
Advocate General Of India…..Respondent
1. Appeal :
An appeal has been filed by Mr.Vikas, Advocate under Section 38 of The Advocate
Act, 1961, against the final order passed by the Disciplinary committee of Bar
Council of India dated 03/01/2001 where he was permanently debarred from
practicing for professional misconduct and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/-.
2. Notice:
A notice was served on the appellant advocate informing him about his
permanent debarring from practice due ot professional misconduct for which he
has appealed to the Bar Council of India.
The reply to the notice was in written form of an affidavit for the complaint filed
by the complainant against the advocate.

4. Facts of the Case:
Appellant advocate enrolled in State Bar Council for Maharashtra and Goa and
was practicing in Nanded. The complainant and all deceased were prosecuted for
committing murder of 6 persons.
The advocate was appointed a Amines coria advocate on request of the
complainants to session court.
The advocate contacted the complainants in Yerwada Central Prison, informed
that he will work free of cost and obtained their thumb impressions and
signatures on Vakalatnama and made an appeal to High court on 10/10/1991.
He obtained their signature on some stamp papers and did not read out the
contents to them. On 01/01/1992 High court dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the death sentence.
5. Framing of Issue:
a. Whether the advocate obtained thumb impressions and signature.
b. Whether he is liable for professional misconduct.
6. Evidence:
It was proved that the appellant me the complainant/complainers and obtained
a copy of thumb impression and signature, he solicited the brief for no
remuneration, he has informed the complainant that he sold their land and made
an appeal to the Supreme Court.
7. Witness:
There was proper witness that the advocate sold the land and misappropriated
the money.
8. Examinations:
The appellant was duly served 4 times, but he did not appear before the
disciplinary committee at any time. He has in fact taken advantage of the
situation that the complainants were facing death sentence.
9. Order:
He was ordered to be liable for professional misconduct and his name was
removed from the rolls of Bar and a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on him.
10. Decree:
A decree has been passed against the advocate.
11. Judgement:

The judgment was delivered by Justice Bhan, appeal observed was dimmed and
the order of the Disciplinary committee of BCI, Maharashtra and Goa was
confirmed.
In my view, the relationship between an advocate and his client is of trust and
such act of professional misconduct on part of the advocate is not justified.

Between:
R.D. Saxena…..Appellant
Vs.
Balram Prasan Sharma……..Respondent
1. Appeal :
The appeal is made by the appellant advocate U/S 38 of the Advocate Act, 1961
against the order passed by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of
India stating the advocate has been guilty of professional misconduct.
2. Notice:
A notice was served on the advocate stating that he has been found guilty of
professional misconduct for which he has appealed to the Bar Council of India.
The reply to the notice was submitted in written form.
The appellant was a practicing advocate in the courts of Bhopal, enrolled as a
legal practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. He was

appointed a legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State co-operative Bank
limited in 1990. He continued to retain in that capacity during the succeeding
years. He was engaged by the bank to conduct case in which the bank was a
party.
On 17/7/1993, the bank terminated the relationship requesting him to return
all the case files. The advocate raised a bill of Rs. 97,000/- towards legal
remuneration and informed that he will return the file only after setting him
dues. A complaint was filed against the advocate for professional misconduct.
In reply, the appellant submitted before the Bar Council that he has not
returned the files as he has a right to retain the files by exercising Right of lien.
After a year, the complaint stood transferred to Bar Council, where after an
enquiry the Disciplinary committee reached to the conclusion that the advocate
was guilty. Thus an appeal under section 38 was made.
5. Issues:
a. Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers
entrusted to him by his client.
6. Evidence:
At the initial stage, I was brought to the notice that the advocate has in fact
retained the litigation papers to which he has admitted.
7. Witness:
There was proper witness as the advocate himself admitted that he has the
papers of bank as a lien.
8. Examination:
The advocate on examination was found guilty of professional misconduct by
Disciplinary committee. It was also found that the banker were attorneys of
High Court and Policy broker may in observance of contract in contrary to retain
as security for a general balance of amount u/s 171 of Indian contract Act.
9. Order:
He was ordered to be liable of professional misconduct.
10. Decree:
A decree has been passed against the advocate.
11. Judgment:

The 2 bench Judge dismissed the appeal holding that the lawyers doesn’t have
a right to lien with respect to case, facts and papers of the client.
12. Personal opinion:
Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or inproper conduct. The refusal to
return the file of client amounted to misconduct u/s 35 of the Act. The Judgment
by Hon’ble Supreme Court is appropriate.

Between:
Vinod Kumar ……. Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh…….. Respondent
1. Appeal :
An appeal by filing a writ petition was noted aggrieved by the orders passed by
the District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 13/02/2001 transferring a
number of criminal cases for disposal to the additional District and session
Judge/special Judge, the petitioner advocate transferred court praying for
questing such an order.
2. Notice:
A notice was issued on the petitioner advocate stating he has no lows standi to
challenge the loyalty of the order by way of writ petition.
3. Reply in affidavit:
The notice served, the appeal made were in form of written statements.

The advocate on behalf of accused person filed a writ petition in the High Court
praying for quashing the order passed by District and sessions judge. It was
contended by the transfer of the cases, the speedy trial of the accused has been
tampered and that the order has been passed in a casual manner. The writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the petitioner being an
advocate had no locus standi to challenge the legality of the order by way of
writ petition.
5. Issues:
a. Whether the advocates Act, 1961 entitle the advocate to substitute himself
and behalf of his clients.
b. Whether the petitioner has locus stands to challenge the legality of the order
by way of a writ petition.
6. Evidence:
As per the High Court, the petitioner advocate has no locus standi to challenge
the legality of the order passed by the District and session’s Judge.
7. Witness:
It is to be noted that as per section 30 of the Advocate’s Act, 1961 it only entitles
the advocate to practice the profession of law and not to substitute himself for
his client.
8. Examination:
Whereas upon in the cross examination, the filing of a suit petition in his oven
name by an advocate was considered to be against professional conduct.
9. Order:
The Supreme Court held that the filing of the writ petition by the advocate in his
own name was not a professional obligation to be followed by him. Thus, the
High Court has justified in dismissing the writ petition field by the advocate.
10. Decree:
A decree was passed against the advocate in this case.
11. Judgement:
The Supreme court held that there was no merit in the petition filed by the
advocate, so it is dismissed by the court.

The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a
right in favor of the person involving the Jurisdiction. The exception to the rule
is that the case where Habeaus corpus, Quo-warrant writs in public interest is
applied. In the instant case, there was no public interest involved either. Thus
filing writ on behalf of petitioner is against the professional conduct of the
advocates.

Between:
Pavan Kumar Sharma ……. Appellant
Vs.
Gurdial Singh ……..Respondent
1. Appeal :
Mr. Gurdial Singh filed a complaint against the appellant advocate on
28/2/1991 stating that the advocate was carrying on “Taxi Business” having
4 taxi’s under his ownership even though he was practicing as a lawyer. It is
contended that he cannot do such act till he obtains the permission of Bar
Council of India. The appellant has performed ‘Professional Misconduct”.
2. Notice:
A notice was issued to the advocate to appear before the Disciplinary
Committee as on Specified date.
The reply to the notice was in written statement to the appeal filed against
the advocate.

The advocate has conducted a professional misconduct, the same was
contended before the State Bar Council. But the case would not be admitted
within a year and was transferred to “the Bar Council of India” Disciplinary
Committee. The misconduct was placed before the committee.
5. Issues:
a. Whether the advocate has done any professional misconduct.
6. Evidence:
On examination of the evidence, it was held that the affidavits filed by the
appellant stating the transfer of business proved to be in favour of respondent.
7. Witness:
It was held that the affidavit only for the transfer of ownership does not lead
to an irresistible conclusion that he was in fact in a “Taxi Business” after his
enrollment as an advocate.
8. Examination:
The appellant stated that after the issuance of license, he did not continue
with the “taxi business”, but the statement remained unregulated and has
also been unchallenged. The complainant in his evidence did not disclose that
the appellant carried on with the “taxi Business” after his enrollment as an
advocate.
9. Order:
It was held that the charge of professional misconduct is a Quasi Criminal in
nature. The evidence did not establish the charge of misconduct against the
appellant.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held the appellant guilty
of professional misconduct.
10. Decree:
A decree was passed against the advocate holding him to be guilty of
professional misconduct.
11. Judgment:
The appellant has called in question the order passed against him by
committee on 11/7/1998 where he was punished with a year of suspension of
practice.

In my opinion, the profession of advocacy is the highest degree of Trust and
Morality. Going against the profession and involving in any other business
constitutes professional misconduct.

Between:
N.G. Dastane ………Appellant
Vs.
Srikanth, S. Sridhar ……… Respondent
1. Appeal :
The appellant has filed an appeal to the Bar Council of India. He is an agricultural
Scientist, and he has accused Mr. Srikanth and Mr. Sridhar of theft of electricity and
they are advocates by profession.
2. Notice:
A notice was served to the respondents to appear before the Disciplinary committee
of India.
Both the respondent advocate filed a Joint Vakalatnama before the trial court and
trial began in 1993.
The current appeal is a civil appeal no.3543 of 2001 from the judgement and order
of Bar Council of India in a revised petition no.15/1995. Appellant is an Agricultural
Scientist, working as an advisor in U.N.O. He filed a complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate against the two respondents for the theft of electricity. Both of these were

practicing as advocates in court. The trial through began in 10/10/1998, it was
adjourned many times.
First adjournment was on the ground of absence of the advocates, then due to throat
infection the first respondent could not be examined but the appellant has seen both
the respondent arguing with his mother.
The next adjournment happened when both the respondents sought for an
adjournment and the appellant raised an objection against the prayer for
adjournment.
5. Issue:
a. Whether seeking adjournment by advocate amount to misconduct.
b. Whether the advocate taking adjournment amount to dereliction of duty.
c. Whether the complainant case was affected due to the act of advocate.
6. Evidence:
The State Bar Council found that the complainant has dropped the further
proceedings against the respondent. The revision petition was disposed by the
impugned order holding that the Bar Council has justified its order.
7. Examination:
On examination it was found that the advocate seeked adjournment so as to keep
the examination pending which is dereliction of duty.
8. Order:
As the misconduct alleged is of the year 1993-94, it was deemed that the other Bar
Council should deal with the complaint and the appellant would stand refused to
other Bar Council under section 36 of The Advocates Act 1961.
9. Decree:
A decree was passed in this case.
10. Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed the said Disciplinary Committee to adopt such steps
which are necessary for the law in light of the observation made in the present case.
In my opinion, the judgment of the court is appropriate to avoid any further delay
in the judgment.

Between:
D.P. Chada……..Appellant
Vs.
Triyugz Narain Mishra ………Respondent
1. Appeal :
Mr. D.P. Chada, advocate the appellant has been held guilty of professional
misconduct by Telangana State Bar Council and was punished with suspension
from practice for a period of 5 years. He preferred an appeal U/S of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
2. Notice:
Advocate D.P.Chada appealed to the Supreme Court against the order passed
by the state bar council.
The reply to the notice was given in an affidavit in written form.
While a Civil Suit was pending, the complainant was not available in the city
so he gave his advocate Mr. D.P. Chada a blank Vakalatnama and a paper
signed by the respondent given on October 1993. The Vakalatnama was used
for engaging Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent on
17/4/1993, The Appellant was not present and the court adjourned stting
possibility of amicable settlement.
On 20/4/1993, Rajesh Jain and Anil Sharma appealed on behalf of their
clients, filed a compromise petition along with a receipt by complainant stating
he has received Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for damage to school
building. The trial court ordered them to appear before court on 17/12/1993
to verify the deed.

Instead of complying with the order Mr. Rajesh Jain filed a miscellaneous civil
application raising a plea that the trial court was not justified in directing,
personal appearance of the practices. But the appeal was dismissed.
5. Issues:
a. Was the court right in passing the decree in the absence of the
complainant.
b. Was the order of punishment justified.
6. Evidence:
The findings were brought forward and was noticed that the advocates has
indeed filed for the compromise deed in absence of clients.
7. Witness:
Thus, there was a proper witness that the compromise deed has been filed by
the complainant.
8. Examination:
As far as the first issue the presiding officer of the trial courts, transfer his
successor has appointed were examined.
As far as the second issue the punishment given by State Bar Council of India
is justified as it had given time to advocate.
9. Order:
The disciplinary committee held the advocate guilty of professional
misconduct, suspended him for 5 years. The BCI ordered a punishment of 20
years from the date of order.
10. Decree:
The Supreme Court has passed the decree against the advocate of his
misconduct.
11. Judgment:
The Supreme Court passed the judgment in favour of respondent. The
sentence awarded by the State Bar Council was upheld and restored there by
setting aside the award passed by the Bar Council of India.
The appellant was guilty of professional misconduct but the Bar Council of
India did not follow the principles of natural Justice where it is not giving
appellant a chance of hearing and enhancing the punishment.

Between:
V.P.Kumar Arelu …….Appellant
Vs.
The Bar Council of India ……..Respondent
1. Appeal :
The appeal arose from a common order dated 15/2/1986 passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India in case no. 48 of 1985. Both the
case pertain to the appellant and were transferred to the Disciplinary
Committee of Bar Council of India as Tamilnadu State Bar Council could not
dispose of these cases within the period prescribed of one year.
2. Notice:
The appellant has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the order of
the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India.
The complaint filed by the commissioner and the secretary of Government of
Tamilnadu against the appellant before the State Bar Council in written
statement.
In October 1978, the appellant was appointed as city Government pleader in
all the civil court matter in Madras. The work was spread over several courts
and the appellant was required to conduct all the civil matters on behalf of the
Government.
This was filed against the state where in the state has become liable to pay a
refund of Rs. 25,575.40/- with interest @12% p.a. The complainant alleged
that as a result of the gross negligence on part of the appellant the Government
of India has suffered substantial loss.
Further, the advocate was also notified that he should be present personally
during the hearing, but he did not follow the instructions either.
5. Issues:

a. Whether there was a professional misconduct on the part of the appellant.
b. Whether negligence amounts to misconduct.
6. Evidence:
It was found that the appellant advocate had no malafide intention to be absent
from both the cases.
7. Witness:
As a witness or proof in the case, it was found that there was no malafide
intention to be proved as guilty of misconduct.
8. Examination:
The examination contended that since the office staff had not put up the papers
of the case before him, it was through inadvertence that the order was passed
as ex-parte.
9. Order:
After the examination of the case, the court contended that the order was
passed as Ex-parte.
10. Decree:
The Supreme Court has passed decree against the Advocates, being guilty of
negligence.
11. Judgment:
The bench decided that the appeal to be allowed as the negligence on the part
of the advocate, when there was no intension to do as was involved.
In my view, there is a failure on part of the appellant to discharge the duties
but such failure was not deliberate. Thus, the order to allow the appeal was
appropriate.

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000
BETWEEN:
SHAMBHLI RAM YADAV …….. PETITIONER/APPELLANT
VS.
HANUMAN DAS KHATRY ……..RESPONDENT
CITATION: AIR 2001 SC 2509

JUDGEMENT: 26 July 2001
QUESTION OF LAW: illegal gratification (bribe)
BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
APPEAL:
In this appeal while issuing notice this Court had stayed till further orders the impugned
order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
NOTICE:
The State Bar Council noticing that the respondent had admitted the contents of the letter
came to the conclusion that it constitutes misconduct.
REPLY IN AFFIDAVIT:
The Reply to the notice was in written from as a written statement.
FACTS:
In this case a complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondent advocate before
the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also heard the appellant as to the
punishment since the advocate has considerable standing in the profession. He has served
as advocate for 50 years and it was not expected of him to indulge in such a practice of
corrupting the judiciary or offering bribe to the judge and he admittedly demanded

Rs.10,000/- from his client and he orally stated that subsequently order was passed in his
client's favour.
The complaint was that the respondent while appearing as a counsel in a suit pending in a
civil court wrote a letter to Mahant Rajgiri, his client interalia stating that his another client
has told him that the concerned judge accepts bribe as he obtained several favorable
orders from him in his favour and impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant which should
be paid by the appellant to the Bar Council of India which has to be paid within two months.
ISSUES:
The State Bar Council came to the conclusion that the respondent won guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended him practice for a period of two years.The
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India enhanced the punishment and directed
that the name of respondent he stride off from the Roll of Advocates and debarring him
permanently from the practice.
FINDINGS:
The respondent filed a review petition under section 44 of the Advocate act against the
order.
The review petition was allowed and the earlier order modified by substituting the
punishment already award permanently debarring him with one of reprimanding him.
The review petition was allowed by the disciplinary committee for the reasons, which in
the words of the committee are these:
1. The committee was under the impression as it was the petitioner who had written a
letter to his client calling him to bribe the judge.
Fact that it was not a offer on the side of the delinquent advocate to bribe a judge.
These facts have been ignored at the time of the passing the impugned order.
2. The petitioner is an old man of 80 years. He joined the profession in the years 1951
and during such long innings of his profession it was for the first time that he conducted
himself in such irresponsible manner although he had no intention to bribe.
3. The committee does not approve the writing of such a letter on the pact of the
lawyers to his client but keeping in view the age and past clean record of the petitioner is
of the view that it could not be appropriate to remove the advocate permanently from the
roll of advocate.

JUDGEMENT:
 Legal profession is not a trade or business. It is a noble professional.
 Members belonging to this profession have not to encourage dishonesty and
corruption to strive to secure justice to their clients if it is legally possible.
 The credibility and reputation of the profession of the profession depends up on the
manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves.
 It is evident that the bar council considered that a high standard of mortality and un
impeachable sense of legal and ethical property from lawyer is required.
 Bar council under the advocate act have been entrusted with the duty of guarding
the professional ethics.
 In this case the Supreme Court has made it clear that the writing letter to his client
to send money to bribe the Judge is a serious misconduct.
 The appeal is this allowed in the above terms with costs qualified at Rs
10,000/-.

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
CASE NO: Appeal (civil) 6304 of 1998
BETWEEN:
Bhupinder Kumar Sharma …….. appellant
Vs.
Bar Association PATHANKOT ……..respondent
CITATION: AIR 2002 SC 47

JUDGEMENT: 31st Oct 2001
QUESTION OF LAW: Continue his business activity
BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil
APPEAL:
The appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 38 of The Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Act) against the judgment and order dated 4.11.1998 passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, confirming the order passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana removing the name of the appellant
from the States Roll of Advocates under Section 35(3)(d) of the Act.
NOTICE:
A notice was served by the appellant to the Bar Association PATHANKOT
REPLY IN AFFIDAVIT:
The Reply to the notice was in written from as a written statement and by Bar Association
PATHANKOT
FACTS OF THE CASE:

THIS IS A CASE WHICH RELATES TO THE PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVOCATE.
In this case an advocate names as Bhupinder Kumar Sharma was enrolled with the State Bar
Council. The State Bar Council / association made a written complaint to the Bar Council / make
allegations of misconduct against the appellant.
The State Bar council took cognizance of the complaint and referred the complaint to its
disciplinary committee.
After the completion of the proceedings the order was passed by the said committee to remove
the name of the appellant from the state roll of the advocate.
ISSUES:
THE ORDER CHALLENGED BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE Bar Council fo India
but the order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council confirmed.
The order of the disciplinary committee of the state bar council was challenged in appeal before
the Supreme Court under section 38 of the Advocate Act.
FINDINGS:
According to the complainant, the appellant advocate was guilty of professional misconduct as he
was carrying on and continued his business and business activities even after his enrollment as
an advocate.
The complaint stated that:
i. He ( the advocate) was running photocopies documentation center in the court compound,
the space for the same was allotted to the appellant in his personal capacity on account of his
being handicap.
ii. He was running a PCO/STD both which was allotted in his name from the P &T department
under Handicap Quota.
iii. He was proprietor/General manager of the Punjab coal briquettes, Pathankot, a Private
concern and he was pursuing the business/ his interest in the said business even on the date
when his statement was recorded by the disciplinary committee.
• The disciplinary committee of the state bar council, after considering the evidence placed
on records (both oral and documentary) record.
• The appellant was guilty of professional misconduct in carrying on business even after his
enrollment as an advocate.
• Passed order to remove his name from the State Roll of advocate under section 35(3)(d)
of the advocates act and debarred him practicing as an advocate.
• The disciplinary committee of the bar council of India. In this appeal filed by the appellant,
advocate on appreciations of the material on record concurred with the finding recorded by the

disciplinary committee of the state bar council and held that the appellant was guilty of
professional misconduct that the punishment imposed on him debarring the appellant from
practicing for all time was just.
• According to the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of India the appellant had not
only procured enrolment by submitting the false declaration but also suppressed the material
facts otherwise the appellant had not only procured enrolment by submitting the false
declaration but also suppressed the material facts otherwise the appellant would not have been
enrolled at all.
It open to State Bar Council to take action under section 26 of the Advocate act.
JUDGEMENT:
The court having regard to the nature of misconduct and taking note of the handicap of the
appellant, debarring from practicing for all time it too harsh.
The court modified the punishment to debar the appellant from practicing up to end of the
December 2006.

PYR - 10 BCI PE Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PYR - 10 BCI PE Cases

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

PYR - 10 BCI PE Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2271/1998

4. Facts of the case:

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Harish Chandra Tiwari …….Appellant

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

CITATION: AIR 2001 SC 2509

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

CASE NO: Appeal (civil) 6304 of 1998

CITATION: AIR 2002 SC 47

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

- YADAVA RAJU MSSLC- 10 SC CASES

You might also like