CASE LAWS PPT ON

PROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCT BY LAWYERS

Made by Apoorv Bansal

ERP ID: 0181BBL005)
CLASS: BBA LLB 6A
State Bank of India
Vs.
Mrs. S. and Co
 BACKGROUND
3
◈ Complainant - State Bank of India
◈ Respondent – Law Firm
◈ Respondent handles the cases of the bank.
◈ The complaint was first filed under
Disciplinary committee (D.C.) of S.B.C.
◈ Later transferred to D.C. of Bar Council.
 FACTS
4
◈ On a financial default case, the respondent advices the
complainant to file a civil suit against the defaulter.
◈ The complainant transferred all the necessary details and
court fee and expenses to the firm.
◈ After some days, the respondent firm did not respond to
any enquiry made by the complainant.
◈ Later it was alleged that by the complainant that the
respondent firm have misappropriated the money and
hence guilty of professional misconduct.
 ISSUES
5
◈ Whether the plaint was returned to the
Respondent as alleged?

◈ Whether the Respondent wrongfully withheld

documents?

◈ Whether the firm can be held vicariously

liable?
 JUDGMENT
6
◈ The senior partner of the firm was found guilty of
serious professional misconduct and was
suspended from practice for a period of 5 years.
◈ He was also made liable to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000
to the Complainant Bank.
◈ Other partners of the Respondent Firm were
exonerated of all charges levelled against them.
N.M. vs. V.D.
 FACTS
8
◈ In a civil suit, the complainant filed 11 documents in court.
◈ Two of the important document goes missing.
◈ It was also alleged that the respondent is forcing the
complainant for compromise.
◈ All these caused unnecessary expenditure and difficulties to
the Complainant due to his latches and negligence.
◈ Complainant filed a complaint for the professional
misconduct by the Respondent.
 ISSUES
9
◈ That the D.C. of the S.B.C. has grossly erred in finding that
the action of the Respondent is not mala fide.
◈ That the learned D.C. has erred in finding that the
Complainant will not suffer any loss on account of the action
of the Respondent.
◈ That the learned D.C. has failed to see that the Respondent
wanted that the Complainant’s civil suit be dismissed.
◈ That the D.C. has awarded a very lenient punishment for the
grave professional misconduct and the D.C. ought to have
removed the name of the Respondent from the Rolls.
 JUDGMENT
10
◈ The D.C. of the B.C.I. completely agreed with the
order of the D.C. of the S.B.C. that no case of mala
fides could be made out by the Complainant.
◈ There was no loss to the Complainant in the suit.
◈ The third ground of appeal was frivolous and
baseless.
◈ The D.C. of the B.C.I. found the punishment
adequate.
THANK YOU!! 