In P.D. Gupta v.

Ram Murti
, the facts were as follows:

1.
The plaintiff, P.D. Gupta, claimed ownership of a
piece of land.
2. The defendant, Ram Murti, asserted ownership of
the same land, claiming to have purchased it from the
plaintiff s father.
3. Ram Murti had been in possession of the land for a
considerable period.
4. The dispute arose when P.D. Gupta contested Ram
Murti s ownership and possession of the land,
leading to a legal battle over the property rights.
issue
Whether the defendant s possession of the land was legally
valid and whether the plaintiff s claim of ownership could be
upheld despite the defendant s possession, particularly in
light of the principle of estoppel.
Judgement
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, P.D. Gupta, declaring
him the rightful owner of the land in question. The court
found that the defendant s possession of the land was not
legally valid as it was based on a flawed title. Additionally, the
court applied the principle of estoppel, holding that the
defendant could not deny facts that he had previously
asserted to be true, especially when such denial would result
in injustice to another party.

Therefore, the court ordered the defendant, Ram Murti, to

vacate the property, affirming the plaintiff s ownership rights
over the land. This judgment established an important
precedent in Indian property law, emphasizing the
significance of valid title deeds and the application of
estoppel in resolving property disputes.

John D'souza v. Edward Ani, AIR 1994 SC 975.

. The case involves an Advocate based in Bangalore who was

entrusted with a Will by Mrs. Mary Raymond. However,
despite repeated requests and demands made by Mrs.
Raymond herself, her lawyer, and the respondent (who held
power of attorney from Mrs. Raymond), the Advocate failed
to return the Will. Initially, the Advocate denied having the
Will but later changed his stance, claiming that he had
returned it in 1982, citing an endorsement made by his wife
in his register of documents.

Issue
"Whether Professional Misconduct was happened by the
Appellant (Advocate) or not."
Judgement
"The Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed
breach of his professional duty and found him guilty of
profession misconduct. The Supreme Court further stated
that, the conduct of Appellant in not returning the Will even
on demand is unworthy of an advocate belonging to a noble
profession. The appeal
dismissed, and the stay granted by SC shall stand vacated.
No costs."

LC Goyal v. Nawal Kishore, (1997) 11

SCC 258.
This appeal is filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against the
order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated
24-6-1983. The order suspended the appellant from practice for a period of
six months.
Facts:
The appellant, an Advocate-on-Record, was engaged by Nawal Kishore to
file a special leave petition in this Court. The appellant filed the special
leave petition and an order was passed for issuing notice to the respondent.
The appellant was subsequently required to produce his books of accounts
and office copies of the letters written by him to the complainant regarding a
deposit of Rs 2000 as a security deposit in the said special leave petition.
The Delhi Bar Council treated the complainant's letter as a complaint and
initiated proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show-cause notice.
Issues:
1 Whether the statement of Nawal Kishore regarding the payment
of Rs 2000 to the appellant is acceptable.
2 Whether the complainant had the necessary funds to make the
payment.
Arguments:
The appellant argues that the statement of the complainant regarding the
payment should not be accepted, as the complainant did not have the
necessary funds.
The court finds no reason to reject the statement of the complainant.
Decision:
The court, after considering the submissions of the appellant, finds no fault
with the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of India. The appeal is dismissed.

V.P. Kumaravelu v. The Bar Council of India, AIR

1997 SC 1014.
1.
The appellant served as the Government Pleader for
civil courts in Madras, excluding the High Court.
2. Complaints were filed against the appellant alleging
negligence in representing the government in civil matters.
3. Instances of negligence included failure to appear in
court and file necessary documents, resulting in ex parte
decrees against the government.
4. These instances led to significant losses and costs,
such as in cases involving land lease disputes and challenges
to employee date of birth.
5. Administrative oversights, like not filing appearance
memos as instructed by the government, further
exacerbated the situation, leading to adverse court rulings
against the government.

Or

The facts of the case involve complaints filed against the

appellant, who served as the Government Pleader for civil
courts in Madras, for negligence in representing the
government in civil matters. These complaints stemmed from
instances where the appellant failed to appear in court and
file necessary documents, leading to ex parte decrees
against the government in various cases. These negligent
actions resulted in significant losses and costs for the
government.

Issue
Can negligence of a legal professional be construed as professional misconduct.

The judgment rendered by the Bar Council of India

found the appellant guilty of constructive negligence but
opted for a milder punishment of severe reprimand, taking
into account mitigating factors such as excessive workload,
staff negligence, and the appellant s seniority and good
reputation in the legal profession. The decision emphasized
the appellant s responsibility as the head of the office to
ensure diligent staff performance and proper attention to
work.

Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad,

1997 (3) SC 131.
• The respondent Ishwar Prasad has been a lawyer in
Badaun. In this case he attacked his adversary Radhey
Shyam in Munsiff's Court Room with a knife during lunch
time. A gun shot at the time of the incidence was reported to
have been fired. He was tried for crimes under the IPC in
accordance with Section 307 after investigation and Arms
Act, Section 25.
• He was convicted for 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
Thereafter using a forged letter of the governor asking the
court to suspend his sentence under Art.161 of the
constitution he got his conviction suspended and he was
released. Later the sessions Judge found the letter as forged
one and he lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of U.P for
necessary action against him.
• Subsequently by taking into account of the bad
conduct of the Advocate, he was debarred from the practice
for a period of 3 years by the State Bar Council. On appeal
this order was set aside. Hikmath Ali Khan preferred an
appeal before Supreme Court against this order.
Citation: Air 1997 Sc 864
Decided on: January 28, 1997
Bench: Justice SC Agarwal & Sujata. V. Manohar
Appellant: Hikmath Ali Khan
Respondent: Ishwar Prasad Arya

Issues
1 Whether Mr. Ishwar Prasad is guilty of professional
misconduct under Section 35 of Advocates act, 1961?
2 Whether a person who is convicted of an offence
involving moral turpitude can be disqualified for being
admitted as an advocate on the State Rolls of Advocate
under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961?

Judgement
• The Supreme Court held that the acts of misconduct
found established were serious in nature and outlined the
options available to the Bar Council under Sub- section (3) of
Section 35 of the Act. The punishment of removal of the
name from the roll of advocates is called for where the
misconduct is such as to show that advocate is unworthy of
remaining in the profession.
• The Supreme Court turned its attention to Section
24A of the Act as a person who is convicted of an offence
involving moral turpitude is disqualified for being admitted as
an advocate on the State roll of advocates. Thus, Supreme
Court held that the gravity of misconduct committed by
Ishwar Prasad Arya is so serious and ordered removal of his
name from the rolls of Advocates.
Reasoning
• The punishment of removal of the name from roll of
advocates is when the lawyer's misconduct is such to show
that the advocate is unworthy of remaining in the profession.
The Supreme Court in the above case has referred to Section
24 of the Act which deals with disqualification from the
enrolment. The court also pointed out that under the same
section a person who is convicted of an offence involving
moral turpitude is disqualified for being admitted as an
advocate on the State roll of advocates.
• It should also be noted that the conduct of offence
involving moral turpitude by a person enrolled as an advocate
would punish him only by removing his name from the rolls of
advocate. The appellants appeal thus being justified.

: Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of

India

Citation: 1997 (2) SCR 499, AIR 1997 SC 1338

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts:

1. Background:
• Prahlad Saran Gupta was a practicing lawyer in
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
• He represented the decree-holder in Execution
Case No. 55 of 1974 (M/s. Alma Ram Nanak Chand v. Shri
Ram Contractor) in the Civil Judge s Court at Ghaziabad.
2. Complaint:
• A complaint was lodged by Rajendra Prasad, a
partner of the firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, alleging
professional misconduct by Gupta.
• The main allegation was that Gupta colluded with
the judgment debtor and wrongfully withheld Rs. 1,500 out of
a Rs. 1,600 settlement amount meant for the decree-holder,
causing an eight-month delay before depositing it in court.
3. Other Allegations:
• Gupta was also accused of charging Rs. 245 for
engaging another counsel to delay the execution
proceedings.
• It was alleged that he carelessly handled the
execution case and filed a suit in the wrong court,
demonstrating professional negligence.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant, Prahlad Saran Gupta, was

guilty of gross professional misconduct.

Judgment:

1. Disciplinary Committee s Findings:

• The committee found no merit in allegations related
to the careless handling of the execution case and the
wrongful filing of the suit.
• However, it upheld the charge of Gupta wrongfully
retaining Rs. 1,500, thereby committing professional
misconduct.
2. Supreme Court s Ruling:
• The Court emphasized that Gupta s conduct of
retaining the settlement amount without proper justification
was against professional ethics.
• It held that as a senior counsel, Gupta was expected
to maintain the highest standards of professionalism.
• The Court found him guilty of professional
misconduct for this act and imposed a punishment of
reprimand to meet the ends of justice .

Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs Bar Council Of

Maharashtra citations: (1984) 2 SCC 556, 1984 1 SCR 414.

Appellant: Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar

Respondent: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Ors.
Citations: (1984) 2 SCC 556, 1984 1 SCR 414

Facts:
The appellant, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar, was a practicing
advocate in the Bombay High Court and was suspended from
practicing law for a period of three years by the Bar Council of
Maharashtra, the respondent. The reason cited for the suspension
was professional misconduct. The appellant challenged the decision
of the Bar Council in the Supreme Court of India.

Facts in issue: The main issue in this case was the validity of the
suspension of the appellant's license to practice law by the Bar
Council of Maharashtra.

Order:
The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Bar Council of
Maharashtra and ruled that the suspension was valid. The court held
that the disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council was in
accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and was a
lawful exercise of its powers. The court also held that the Bar Council
had followed the principles of natural justice and provided the
appellant with a fair opportunity to be heard.

D.S. Dalal, an employee of the State Bank of India

(SBI), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which he
challenged. The crux of Dalal s challenge was based on the
assertion that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted
in violation of the principles of natural justice.D.S. Dalal, the
employee, might have been accused of misconduct or
breaching company policies or regulations by the State Bank
of India (SBI) or other involved parties.

Key Points:

1. Principles of Natural Justice: Dalal argued that he

was not given a fair hearing and that the disciplinary actions
taken against him did not adhere to the necessary procedural
fairness required by the principles of natural justice.
2. Disciplinary Procedures: The case scrutinized the
procedural conduct of SBI in the disciplinary proceedings. It
examined whether the processes followed were in
compliance with the established rules and whether Dalal was
given an adequate opportunity to present his case.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court of India, in its
judgment, underscored the importance of adherence to the
principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It
held that any disciplinary action taken must be fair,
transparent, and must provide the accused party with a
proper opportunity to defend themselves.
4. Outcome: The court found that the disciplinary
proceedings conducted by SBI were flawed due to non-
compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the court set aside the disciplinary actions
against Dalal.

Legal Implications:

This case reinforced the judiciary s commitment to ensuring

that disciplinary proceedings in employment contexts,
especially in public sector undertakings like SBI, adhere
strictly to the principles of natural justice. It highlighted the
necessity for procedural fairness and transparency to protect
the rights of employees against arbitrary actions by
employers.

Conclusion:

D.S. Dalal v. State Bank of India and ors is a landmark case in

Indian employment law, particularly concerning the
enforcement of natural justice in disciplinary actions. It
serves as a precedent ensuring that employees are treated
fairly and are given a chance to defend themselves
adequately in disciplinary proceedings.

V. C. Rangadurai v. D.Gopalan and ors, 1979 AIR 281.

Petitioner: V. C. Rangadurai
Vs.
Respondent: D. Gopalan and Ors.

ACTS/RULES/ORDERS USED IN THE CASE

Section 30, Section 35, Section 35(3), Section 35(3)(c), Section 35(4), Section 36, Section 37, Section
37(2), Section 38 of Advocate Act, 1961 and Article 19, Article 38, Article 39A of Constitution of
India.

Facts:
• The appellant was found guilty of gross professional misconduct
by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
• The appellant had drafted a plaint for recovery of Rs 5000 with
interest, but no such suit was ever filed.
• The appellant wrongfully withheld the money of his client.
• The complaint against the appellant was filed in April 1974, and
the property was actually sold to M.M Hanifa for Rs 36,000 by registered
sale deed dated August 1, 1974.
Issues:
• Whether the finding of professional misconduct on the part of the
appellant is based on legal evidence or mere conjectures?
• Whether the complaint against the appellant was false and
constituted an attempt at blackmail?
• Whether the punishment imposed on the appellant is
appropriate?
• Whether the appellant can resume the privilege of practicing law
without restrictions
Judgements

The court found the appellant guilty of gross professional

misconduct based on legal evidence, dismissing claims of
falsity in the complaint. It upheld the penalty of suspension
with a provision for reduction upon serving the poor for a
year. The burden rests on the appellant to prove entitlement
to resume law practice without restrictions, and the court
maintains the punishment as appropriate, hoping for the
appellant s positive transformation.

. Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta V. Rameshchandra Vithal Das Sheth

Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta was an advocate in Bombay Bar Association. He was legal
advisor to a bogus financer. The Respondent applied for loan to the financer. The documents
were processed by appellant advocate and charged Rs. 10,000/-. Then, the Respondent
gave the complaint against the advocate. Then, the case came before Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ordered removal of his name from the rolls as the conduct of the advocate
would amount to Professional Misconduct.

Or

10. Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta vs Rameshchandra Vithaldas

Sheth

The appellant was an Advocate practising in Bombay.Respondent

No.1 (the complainant) made a complaint to the Bar Council of
Maharashtra alleging professional misconduct against the appellant.
His case was that he was a proprietor of a firm engaged in a
business of manufacturing. Allegations of defrauding and cheating
aspirantloaners-Proceedings before State Bar Council and Bar
Council of India-Findings of Disciplinary Committee that concerned
advocate and financier being parties to racket defrauded aspirant
loanee in receiving large sum of money or pretext of legal expenses
and other incidental costs for advancing proposed loan.SC held that
concerned advocate has not only misused the trust reposed in him
but has played an active part in defrauding or cheating the
complainant who on the basis of the false representation of the
concerned advocate had to part with substantial amount to his
serious loss and prejudice. In such facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any reason to reduce the punishment imposed
on the appellant. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with
costs.

In the case of Haniraj L. Chulani vs. Bar Council of

Maharashtra & Goa (1996), the facts are as follows:

1. Petitioner: Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani, a qualified medical

practitioner who was also enrolled as an advocate with the
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.
2. Dual Professions: Dr. Chulani was practicing both
professions simultaneously—medicine and law.
3. Challenge: The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
took the stance that Dr. Chulani s simultaneous practice of
medicine and law was in violation of Rule 47 of the Bar
Council of India Rules. Rule 47 prohibits advocates from
engaging in any other profession or business.
4. Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules:
• States that an advocate shall not personally engage
in any business.
• Allows an advocate to be a sleeping partner in a firm
doing business, provided that the nature of the business is
not inconsistent with the dignity of the legal profession.
5. Proceedings: Dr. Chulani challenged the validity of
Rule 47, arguing that it was unconstitutional and infringed
upon his fundamental right to practice any profession,
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
6. Primary Question: Whether Rule 47, which restricts
advocates from engaging in other professions, is valid and
enforceable.

Key Legal Issues

1.
Constitutionality of Rule 47: Whether the rule
violated Dr. Chulani s fundamental rights.
2. Regulatory Authority: The extent of the Bar Council s
authority to impose such regulations on advocates.

Court s Reasoning

1. Professional Exclusivity: The Supreme Court upheld

the view that the legal profession demands a full-time
commitment and that advocates should not engage in other
professions, including medicine, as it could compromise their
dedication and professional integrity.
2. Purpose of Regulation: The Court recognized that
the regulation aims to maintain the dignity and honor of the
legal profession by ensuring that advocates do not have
conflicting commitments that could affect their legal
practice.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Bar Council, stating

that Rule 47 is valid and does not infringe upon the
constitutional rights of advocates. The decision emphasized
the importance of professional exclusivity in the legal field
and supported the Bar Council s regulatory framework aimed
at preserving the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’