Narain Pandey vs Pannalal Pandey on 10 December, 2012

Author: R Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6363 OF 2004

Facts of the case:

1. The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961

against the Respondent, an advocate in District Sant Rabidass Nagar,
Bhadohi before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh ('BCUP') for having
allegedly forged and fabricated documents including settlement
documents without the knowledge of the parties in the Consolidation
court.
2. The Complainant prayed for cancellation of license to practice and sought
the advocate to be booked for professional misconduct on account of
d fictitious compromise.
3. The DC of BCUP vide order dated 28.05.2002 debarred the advocate from
practice for a period of seven years from the judgement.
4. Thereafter, the Respondent appealed under Section 37 of the said act
before the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India ('DC of BCI'). The
- to the Advocates
Welfare fund vide order dated 20.06.2004.
5. Consequently, the Complainant appealed before the Supreme Court of
India ('SC').

Issue of the case:

Whether the punishment awarded by DC of BCI was just and proper?

Laws involved:

[The Advocates Act, 1961]

S.38 Appeal to the Supreme Court -- Any person aggrieved by an order
made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under section 36
or section 37 1[or the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the
State concerned, as the case may be,] may within sixty days of the date on which
the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and
the Supreme Court may pass such order 1[(including an order varying the
punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India)]
thereon as it deems fit.

S.35 Punishment of advocates for misconduct -- (3) The disciplinary

committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the
Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following
orders, namely
(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the
instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;
(b) reprimand the advocate;
(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub-
section (3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from
practising in any court or before any authority or person in India.

S.37 Appeal to the Bar Council of India -- (1) Any person aggrieved by an
order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council made 1[under section
35] 2[or the Advocate General of the State] may, within sixty days of the date of
the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the Bar Council of
India.

Arguments:

While the Respondent claimed that a false case was made against him due
to enmity. The Respondent advocate failed to cross examine the witnesses of
the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that the advocate had not only
.
Therefore, the lack of oral or documentary evidence on part of advocate could
not dilute the charges of professional misconduct.
Observation by the Court:

The Disciplinary Committee (DC) of BCUP observed that the advocate

committed serious professional misconduct by filing 'vakalatnamas' without any
authority and later compromising fictitiously adversely affecting the interests of
the parties concerned herein. Further the Supreme Court held that the order
given by DC of BCI was flawed. As it overlooked documentary evidence, seven
witnesses and forged and fabricated vakalatnams. The DC of BCUP also failed to
have a cross- examination. Additionally, SC struck down the view of DC of BCI of
the advocate being negligent before Chakbandi Officer.

Cases Referred:

In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and others[1], a seven-

Judge Bench of this Court was concerned with an appeal filed
under Section 38 of the 1961 Act by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and
the main controversy therein centered around the meaning of the

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in his concurring opinion made the following weighty
observations with regard to the Bar and its members:
(1) There is a socially useful function for the lawyer to perform,
(2) The lawyer is a professional person who will perform that function,
and
(3) His performance as a professional person is regulated by himself not
more formally, by the profession as a whole.

In V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Others[2], a majority judgment in an

appeal filed under Section 38 of the 1961 Act speaking through V.R.
Krishna Iyer, J. observed as follows:
n elitist profession.
Its ethics, in practice, (not in theory, though) leave much to be

In a recent decision of this Court in Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal

Vishwakarma[4], this Court speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) in
paragraph 23 of the Report (Pg. 747) observed as follows:
The legal profession is a noble profession. It is not a business or a
trade. A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty
and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting. An
 ent have to be

Judgement:

The Court held that the advocate was guilty of serious and grave
professional misconduct. Therefore, in interest of administration of justice and
to protect the traditions of Bar and Bench fraudulent conduct of lawyer must
Any compromise with the purity, dignity and
nobility of the legal profession is surely bound to affect the faith and respect of
the people in the rule of law.
advocate was awarded punishment of professional misconduct.