UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL

STUDIES, PANJAB UNIVERSITY

(CHANDIGARH)

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM

PROJECT ON

SURENDRANATH MITTAL V. DAYANAND

SWAROOP (BCI TR. CASE NO. 63/1987

Submitted by:- Submitted to:-

Srishti Sharma Dr. Rabia

B.A. LL.B.(Hons.)
Section-C
Semester-VIII
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I want to thank my research supervisor, Dr. Rabia, who
selflessly helped me in completing this project. Her teaching style and
methodology have always inspired me to achieve my targets. She raised many
precious points in our discussion and I hope that I have managed to address several
of them here.

I would like to extend my gratitude to The Director, University Institute of Legal

Studies, Prof. Rajinder Kaur for giving me this golden opportunity to express
myself.

Getting through my dissertation required more than academic support, and I have
many, many people to thank for listening to and, at times, taking a stand for me. I
cannot begin to express my gratitude and appreciation for their friendship.

With Regards,

Srishti Sharma
 INTRODUCTION

By all means, the legal profession is intended to be divine or sacred. Every

profession has a set of standards for professional conduct that members of that
profession must uphold. However, there is also the reality that professional
misconduct occurs frequently in both advocacy work and other professions.

In layman’s words, it refers to various actions taken by individuals that appear to

be inconsistent with professional ethics and unsuited for the profession.

Black’s Law Dictionary gives a precise definition of the phrase as the violation of
some established and unambiguous rule of action, a prohibited act, failure to
perform a duty, unlawful behavior and improper or wrong behavior.

The Advocates Act, 1961, as well as Indian Bar Council was silent in providing an
exact definition for Professional Misconduct because of its wide scope through
Advocates Act, 1961 to take disciplinary action punishments are prescribed when
the credibility and reputation of a profession come under a clout on account of acts
of omission and omission by any member of the profession.
 ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
The provisions of the Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which are as follows,
address professional misconduct by Indian Attorneys and Advocates:-

If a person is found guilty Professional Misconduct, the case will be referred to a

disciplinary committee, a hearing date will be set and the Advocate General of the
state will be given a show-cause notice. After hearing from both the parties, the
state Bar Council’s disciplinary commission may:-

1. Dismiss the complaint, or where the proceedings were initiated at the

instance of the State Bar Council, directs that proceedings be filed,
2. Reprimand the Advocate,
3. Suspend the Advocate from practice for such a period as it deems fit,
4. Remove the name of an Advocate from the state roll of Advocates.

The Bar Council of India has the authority to establish guidelines and standards for
professional misconduct under section 49 of the Advocates Act. According to the
Act, it is against the Advocate’s Code of Ethics for anybody to make
advertisements or solicitations. Additionally, he is not permitted to use the name or
service for unlawful purposes, demand payment for training or place
advertisements in publications, personal communications, or interviews.

The Supreme Court ruled in State of Punjab v. Rana Singh 1992 AIL 2188 that
misconduct can include moral turpitude, must be improper or wrong behavior,
unlawful, and willful behavior, a forbidden act, violation of an established and
clear rule of action or code of conduct, but not just a mistake of judgment,
carelessness, or negligence in the performance of duty.

CASE LAW:

SURENDRANATH MITTAL

V.

DAYANAND SWAROOP

(BCI TR. CASE NO. 63/1987)

 COMPLAINANT: Surendranath Mittal
 RESPONDENT: Dayanand Swaroop
 PRESENT: 1. Shri Kumaran Kutty, Chairman
2. Shri Arjun Mishra, Member/Chairman, Bar Council of India
3. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra
 JUDGEMENT DATED: 5th March, 1999
 FACTS OF THE CASE:-
The complaint was addressed to the Chief Justice of Uttar Pradesh High Court
by Surendranath Mittal against Dayanand Swaroop alleging that Dayanand
Swaroop and his father Shri Bhagwat Swaroop filed a suit against the
complainant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 148 for use and occupation of an
accommodation in the tenancy of the complainant Shri Bhagwat Swaroop who
died in the year 1970 and his heirs were brought on record.
 Dayanand Swaroop tools over the litigation and adopted means which cannot be
said to be honourable. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27 May 1975 and a
decree was drawn. subsequent to the preparation of the decree. Dayanand
Swaroop had made interpolation in the judgement and decree by adding the
word “Mai Sood” either in his own handwriting or otherwise caused to be
added these two words. These two words added in the operative portion of the
judgement and so also in the decree are in the same handwriting and it is not in
the handwriting of the Presiding Officer Shri KS Shukla or in the handwriting
of the clerk concerned,
Shri Anand Swaroop Sharma who scribed the decree and was working as a
Reader in the court of Munsif Magisgrate, Bulandshashr. Thus, the respondent
filed an application that the decretal amount is short by Rs. 47.40 based on the
interpolation.

 LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED : Advocates Act (act number 25 of

1961), professional misconduct, interpolation in the judgment and degree by
adding the words “mai sood” meaning “including interest” which were not there
at the time of preparation of judgment.

 ISSUES INVOLVED: The suit was declared ex parte, and a degree was
drawn. Thereafter Dayanand Swaroop made interpolation in the judgment and
degree by addition of the word “Mai sood” either in his own handwriting, or
otherwise caused to be added these two words. These words, but I did the
operative portion of the judgment, and also in the decree and they are in the
same handwriting, and it is not the handwriting of the presiding officer or in the
 handwriting of the clerk concerned. The respondent advocate denied the
allegation and contended that he had not committed any offense.

 CONTENTIONS RAISED: The respondent denied the allegation, and he

contended that he has not committed any offense. He stated that he has not
mentioned in the word “Mai sood” meaning “interest included”. It was not in
his hand writing at the time when he prepared the decree. These words were not
in the judgment also. The order sheet dated 27th May, 1991 after delivering the
judgment, was in the hand writing of Narain Singh, the Reader. In the order
sheet the words “including interest” were not there. He also deposed that it was
not in the hand writing of the judge also.
However, in the cross examination, the said witness has stated that interest of
6.18 by month was in the hand, writing of Shri Shukla, Magistrate but he has
not signed. Only the words “Mai sood” meaning “including interest” was not in
the handwriting of the judge. The witness could not say when it was mentioned.
But at the time of the preparation of judgement it was not there. The
complainant has stated that he came to know about the ex parte degree only at
the time of execution. the execution order was dismissed. An application was
moved stating that Rs. 48.50 were not paid. Then he came to know that “mai
sood” was subsequently interpolated. Either the advocate himself has
interpolated or got it interpolated by someone else.
It is felt that at the time when the judgment was past these words were not there.
Shri Kailashchand Mittal was also examined. He had brought the records. Shri
Dayanand Swaroop was examined as RW-1. He has stated that the words “Mai
sood” were not added by him. It was in the handwriting of Anand Swaroop.
 JUDGEMENT: It is apparent that judgment dated 17th May 1995 on record
that the word “mai sood” is not in the same hand writing in which the other
correction has been made by adding 6.18 P per men-sum. But even if the word
“mai sood” is ignored, it is apparent that amount at the rate 6.18 P per month in
view of profits will be paid including future profits. It indicates earlier interest
was also awarded. In the original decree, the term appears to be subsequently
written in different ink.
Thus, it is apparent that the word “Mai sood” has been added subsequently. We,
therefore have no hesitation to hold that it was the respondent who added these
words, subsequently as it was to his advantage. Thus, he is clearly guilty of
getting manipulated or manipulating the court record by adding the words “mai
sood” in the judgment and the decree. We order suspension of the respondent
for a period of one year.
While imposing this punishment, the court takes into consideration, that the
word “future interest” too was mentioned in the decree at the rate 6.18 P per
month. That was obviously made with the intention that the judgment wants to
carry earlier interest. Otherwise, the utilization of the word “future interest”
would not have been made as observed by District Court. We are of the view
that the word “Mai sood” was not in the judgement.

 HELD: Hence, in this case, it was held that the responded has committed
misconduct by interpolation by addition of the word “including interest”.
The respondent should pay a cost of Rs. 3000 to the complainant and if he fails
to pay the cost within two months he shall have to for undergo suspension for
an additional period of one year.
The Cost should be deposited in the Bar Council of India, to be remitted to the
complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this
judgment.