A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF:

L.C. Goyal v. Nawal Kishore

1997 11 (Supreme Court Cases) 258

SUPERVISED BY:

DR. ASHOK KUMAR

FACULTY, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS (CLINICAL PAPER III)

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR, GAYA

SUBMITTED BY:

KUMAR PRITAM

CUSB1813125048 (SECTION B)

B.A.LL.B. (HONS.)

10th SEMESTER

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR, GAYA

1|Page
 TABLE OF INDEX

Sl. Contents Page

No. No.

1. CASE SUMMARY AND OUTCOME 3

2. FACT IN ISSUES/LEGAL QUESTION 3
3 FACT 3-6

4. THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE HAS, IN THIS

CONTEXT, POINTED OUT 6

5. CONCLUSION 7

2|Page
CASE ANALYSIS:
L.C. Goyal v. Nawal Kishore
Citation: 1997 11 (Supreme Court Cases) 258

Judgment Date: January 9, 1997

Themes: Enquiry into Professional Misconduct

Case Summary and Outcome

This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") is directed against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India
dated 24-6-1983 whereby the appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of six
months.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India accepting the complainant-client's
statement that the appellant-Advocate had obtained Rs 2000 from him allegedly for depositing
in the Supreme Court and had given him a forged receipt Supreme Court agreeing with the
assessment of evidence by the Disciplinary Committee In such circumstances, merely because
the complainant had mentioned in his statement that he had borrowed Rs 2000 from one K,
non-examination of K in support of the said statement, held, would not justify the discarding
of the complainant's testimony.

Fact in Issues/Legal Question

i. The order taken by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India is arbitrary
or not?
ii. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India taken action against the
advocate in just and reasonable manner or not?
 Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961
 Section 36 (B), Advocates Act, 1961
 Section 38, Advocates Act, 1961
 Article 142, Constitution of India, 1950.

3|Page
Facts

The appellant was practising as an Advocate-on-Record in this Court. He was engaged by one
Nawal Kishore (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") to file a special leave petition in
this Court. The appellant filed the special leave petition and on the said special leave petition
an order was passed for issuing notice to the respondent in the said petition. The case of the
complainant is that thereafter he received a letter dated 7-9-1979 from one Balaram, describing
himself as PA to the appellant, whereby the complainant was asked to come immediately to
Delhi with Rs 2000 which amount was to be deposited as security de- posit in the Court and
that on receiving the said letter he came to Delhi on 13-9-1979 and handed over a sum of Rs
2000 to the appellant for depositing the same in the Court.

The complainant's case is that after paying the said amount to the appellant he asked for a
receipt but he was informed by the appellant that the receipt would be obtained from the Court
after 3 or 4 days. According to the complainant, he wrote several letters to the appellant asking
for the receipt of Rs 2000 and that by letter dated 21-1-1980 the appellant wrote to him that a
theft had been committed at his residence and, therefore, he was unable to send any bill/receipt
at present and that he had to apply for a duplicate receipt. He asked the complainant to come
on 1-2-1980 or 2-2-1980 because the case was fixed for 4-2-1980.

The complainant reached Delhi on 4-2-1980 and when he met the appellant he handed over to
him a receipt dated 15-9-1979 bearing No. 611334 signed by the Deputy Registrar
(Administration) of the Supreme Court. The case of the complainant is that he showed the said
receipt to another Advocate, Shri M.K Garg, who felt a doubt about the genuineness of the said
receipt since no security amount was required to be deposited during the pendency of the
special leave petition and security amount was required to be deposited only after the special
leave was granted.

Thereupon the complainant submitted a letter dated 7-2-1980 to the Registrar of the Supreme
Court wherein he set out the facts aforementioned and along with the said letter he also
submitted the receipt for Rs 2000 that was handed over to him by the appellant. After the receipt
of the said complaint a letter dated 6-5-1980 was sent to the appellant by the Assistant Registrar
(Administration) of the Supreme Court wherein after referring to Receipt No. 611334 dated
15-9-1979 for Rs 2000 it was stated that from the records of the Supreme Court it was found
that no such receipt was issued by the Registry of the Supreme Court for a sum of Rs 2000 in
the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4886 of 1979 nor any amount towards security was ever

4|Page
deposited in the Supreme Court Registry in the said matter. By the said letter the appellant was
required to produce his books of accounts and office copies of the letters written by him to the
complainant regarding deposit of Rs 2000 as security deposit in the said special leave petition.

In his reply dated 15-5-1980 to the said letter the appellant stated that his landlady had illegally
and forcibly trespassed into his residence on 6-2-1980 and all his files and papers were either
lying in the custody of the landlady or had been stolen away and that in these circumstances it
was not possible to produce any books of accounts or office copies in connection with the case
and that it was not possible for him to say anything relying on memory.

In the said letter the appellant did not deny his having received a sum of Rs 2000 from the
complainant or his having given the receipt in respect of the said amount to the complainant.
Thereafter, the appellant addressed another letter dated 11-6-1980 to the Registrar of this Court
wherein he denied that any sum of Rs 2000 had been left with him by the complainant for
depositing as security amount in the aforementioned special leave petition.

By his letter dated 12-8-1980, the Registrar of the Supreme Court sent the original letter dated
7-2-1980, submitted by the complainant to the Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi. In the said
letter it was stated that according to the counter-foil Receipt No. 611334 had been issued on 3-
3-1978 to Shri O.P Rana, Advocate in token of receipt of a cheque for Rs 121.50p from him
towards the rent of Chamber No. 55 of the Supreme Court Lawyers' Chambers, and the question
of issuing the said receipt to the appellant did not arise at all and that there cannot be any
question of security being deposited in a special leave petition which is yet to be admitted.

It was also stated that since the receipt is- sued by the Registry for a particular purpose had
been wrongfully taken and tampered with and used as a receipt issued in a case in which no
deposit was required to be made or has been made, the matter was being referred to the State
Bar Council for such further action as may be considered proper in the circumstances of the
case. After receipt of the said letter, the Delhi Bar Council treated the letter of the complainant
dated 7-2-1980 as a complaint and initiated proceedings against the appellant by issuing a
show-cause notice dated 8-1- 1981.

The appellant submitted his reply dated 3-2-1981 wherein he reiterated the stand taken by him
in his letter dated 11-6-1980 addressed to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Delhi Bar Council recorded the statements of SL Sethi, Cashier, Supreme
Court, the complainant Nawal Kishore and Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate. The
statement of the appellant had been partly recorded and the matter was fixed for his cross-

5|Page
examination on 4-11-1981 on which date he absented himself and thereupon an ex parte order
was passed against the appellant by the Delhi Bar Council. On appeal the said order was set
aside by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and the proceedings thereafter
stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36-B of the Act. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India, after completion of the cross- examination of the
appellant, heard the appellant and has passed the impugned order wherein it has been found
that the following circumstances have been made out:

i. Receipt No. 611334 is a forged document.

ii. The statement of Nawal Kishore that he paid Rs 2000 to the appellant as demanded by
the appellant through letter written by Balaram describing himself as PA to the
appellant was acceptable.
iii. The suggestion that Balaram was a pairokar of Nawal Kishore could not be accepted
since Nawal Kishore has denied it and Balaram would not have described himself as
PA to the appellant in the letter to Nawal Kishore if in fact he was a pairokar of Nawal
Kishore.
iv. Nawal Kishore became suspicious and showed the receipt given to him by the appellant
to Shri Garg who on verification from the Cash Section of the Supreme Court found
that the receipt was a forged document and thereupon the matter was reported to the
Registrar.

The Disciplinary Committee has, in this context, pointed out:

i. When the Registrar asked the appellant's explanation, in the first instance, the appellant
did not deny the allegations and asked for looking in the records of the Supreme Court.
With his experience as an Advocate-on-Record the appellant would have immediately
denied the allegation if in fact he had not obtained the sum of Rs 2000 and if in fact he
had not given the receipt to Nawal Kishore
ii. Nawal Kishore had stated that the appellant advised him to take back his complaint
from the Registry of the Supreme Court and that the appellant would return the amount
due to Nawal Kishore but Nawal Kishore had expressed his inability to do so. The
appellant had not cross-examined Nawal Kishore on this point.

6|Page
Conclusion

This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against the order of
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Committee of the
Bar Council of India accepting the complainant-client's statement that the appellant-Advocate
had obtained Rs 2000 from him allegedly for depositing in the Supreme Court.

The Act has conferred powers on the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India to
make inquiry in some cases on complaints of misconduct referred to it, to withdraw cases for
enquiry before itself, to hear appeals and order stay and to review its own orders.

The Bar Council of India has reason to believe that any advocate on the common roll whose
name is not entered on any state roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it
shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committees which was same happened in this
case & the committee may also of its own motion, withdraw for enquiry before itself any
proceedings for disciplinary action against any advocate pending before the disciplinary
committee of any state Bar Council and dispose of the same.

7|Page