SUBJECT: PROFESIONAL ETHICS AND

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING

TOPIC- CASES

BY- TRINABH SHARMA

BBA LL.B 7TH SEM.
Case 31: vicarious liability for the acts of a partner: State Bank
of India v. Mrs. S and Co.

 FACTS: the complainant filed a complaint before the S.B.C and the same was referred by D.C.
- the DC OF BCI, due to some doubts issued notices for rehearing of the matter.
 Respondent filed for maintenance at this stage.
 Complainant-advocate asked for adjournment of the matter for filing objection- it was granted by
court- was upheld twice.
 The complainant filed a case against the partners of respondent for misappropriating the money
given for fees and expenses
 JUDGEMENT: after considering all the arguments, the court held that the only liable person for
misconduct was the senior partner. No vicarious liability arises in this case. The senior partner
had to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and was debarred for 5 years.
Case 32: negligence not amounting to misconduct:
R.M.V v. A.R and P.M

 FACTS: complainant entrusted certain files and documents with the respondent in order to file 2
cases – against the stock exchange and company for not delivering shares to him as per the
agreement.
 The 2 files contained some important records – one of them was letter from the company
admitting to pay the liability of Rs.51,900 to the complainant
 respondent no. 1 agreed to the fact that he was approached by the complainant and since he was
not well-versed with the subject- transferred the case to respondent no. 2
 Respondent agreed to this so fact but disagreed that the case was given to him through .
 JUDGEMENT: the appeal was dismissed with case of Rs.1000/- payable to respondent no. 2.
Case: 33 interfering with the decisions of influencing the judge:
BCI, Maharashtra v. G.M.

FACTS: an advocate issued pamphlet containing allegations of corruptions, misconduct, etc. against
the members of the Bar as well as the judiciary- alleged that the R was appearing as a public
prosecutor in a criminal case.
-accused was kept in the lock-up before he was identified in the identification room- was a material
evidence- judge added the word “not” before the word true- changed the entire nature of the case.
 This was done at the instance of R- public prosecutor behind the defence counsel
 Post inquiry- Maharashtra S.B.C initiated Suo Moto disciplinary proceedings against the R.
 JUDGEMENT: the D.C. of the S.B.C after considering the records in the details rejected the
complaint, the order and the reasons for the order again given by the D.C. the S.B.C were upheld
by the DC of the Bar Council and the appeal was dismissed.
Case 34: negligence not amounting to misconduct:: J.M
v. S.S

 FACTS: the complainant–met with an accident due to rash and negligence driving of a lorry
driver- lorry hit against the complainant- complainant- hospitalised during the period of his
treatment in the hospital as in-patient.
 Complainant filed case for compensation against the lorry driver through respondent. Post
discharge of the complainant- C found that the R-advocate filed 2 cases- C sought for return of
papers.
 Papers weren’t returned to him. R was guilty of grave professional misconduct by not filing case
in spite of payment of fees and not returning case papers in spite of request.
 JUDGEMENT: in the view of the above circumstances the DC of the BCI was pleased to
interfere with the order passed by the DC of SBC finding the respondent guilty of professional
misconduct and the impugned order was set aside and as a result, the appeal was allowed.
Case 35: interfering with the decisions by influencing the judge:
suo moto enquiry v. Smt. S.T.T

 FACTS: Maharashtra SBC initiated Suo Moto inquiry against the respondent on the basis of a
complaint filed by Housing society there was a dispute between the society and complainant company
of builders.
 Temporary injunction against the society restraining it from getting the building constructed through
any other builder- delay beyond reasonable period- society suffered great hardships and inconvenience.
 the R assured the society members disposal of matter as soon as possible by the way of personal
influence on judge and demanded some money- contributed by all the members. R did not fulfil the
promise- guilty of misconduct- R denied all the allegations and also denied the fact that se had taken
money.
 JUDGEMENT: the BCI found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct of severe nature- R
was suspended from the practice for the period of 1 year. R was also liable to pay sum of rupees 1000
to the complainant towards the cost of the case.
Case 36: conviction for offence for involving moral
turpitude: BCI, Maharashtra v. G.L.

 FACTS: the R-advocate was legal advisor to the government of Maharashtra in M.S.R.T.C. He
accepted some illegal gratification in that capacity and was arrested, tried, convicted and punished
u/s 161 of the IPC r/w section 5(1)(d) and 66(2) of the Prosecution of Corruption Act
 Appeal of the R was rejected by the SC- post completion of sentence claimed for the continuation of
practice.
 after 8 years- BCI, Maharashtra- received anonymous letter alleging the above facts- made inquiry
with HC-facts were confirmed.
 SBC initiated disciplinary proceedings- completed within 1 year of statutory period
 JUDGEMENT: the BCI was of a opinion that it would serve the ends of justice if the R was
reprimanded with admonition instead of punishment. It was made clear that this decision was not
forming the precedent as the view was taken only in the special facts and circumstances of the case.
Case 37:contempt of court by making scandalous allegations
against the presiding officer: P.R. v. V.I

 FACTS: at the material time the complainant was Munsiff Magistrate and the R was an advocate
was representing the R in a maintenance case pending before the complainant .
- Case was called out-R-advocate and the R were absent- case was heard- Res-Parte
 R in his defence- did not delay- fact of filing the Contempt of court petition. He stated that the
petition filed was in the capacity of a advocate and not in the personal advocate. Hence he has
not committed the professional misconduct for the district and sessions judge to victimise him
 JUDGEMENT: the BCI had no doubt that the respondent had committed professional
misconduct in filing the petition against the presiding officer with serious allegations and
therefore is liable to be punished u/s 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961
Case 38: acting in a case in which the advocate has pecuniary interest,
sharing profits of case and lenders money to the client: D.R.M v. S.A.M
and I.M.K

 FACTS: complainant have levelled three charges against the respondents:

1. They have acted and the pleaded in a case in which they themselves have the pecuniary interest which is
prohibited by rule 9 of the rules framed u/s 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961
2. They have agreed to share the proceeds of the litigation
3. They have lent the money to their clients for the purpose of legal proceedings in which they are engaged by
their clients.
 Allegations against the R-2 was- he was party to an agreement for sale before practice. Agreement for sale wrt
joint family property and he filed a suit against the other members of joint family for partition and possession
of sale filed their share in the property.
 State bar on itself if not giving him sufficient opportunity to be present before it in the meanwhile the period of
1 year- expired and case still stood pending before BCI
 JUDGEMENT: therefore BCI upheld the order of the SBC and held that R1 was not guilty of misconduct.
Both the Respondents were held not guilty of misconduct and the appeal was dismissed through the complaint
appeared to be wholly made mala fide taking the lenient view BCI made the costs easy on the parties.
Case 39: latches and negligence in conducting the case:
N.M v. V.D.

 FACTS: complainant had engaged R-advocate to represent him in a civil suit- C filed 11
documents. Subsequently the R started pressing the complainant to enter into compromise.
Complainant became suspicious-engaged another advocate along with R.
 The advocate disowned the very 2 important documents- missing from the case file records. After
the inquiry, it was found that it was taken out by respondent and signed the lost of documents to
that document. To mislead the complainant, date was not mentioned. Without the knowledge of
these events, complainant had led his evidence- put to an embarrassment – could not mark these
documents. The R has caused unnecessary expenditure and difficulties to the complainant due to
his latches and negligence.
 JUDGEMENT: after hearing the parties at the length the DC of the BCI dismissed the appeal on
the following.
Case 40: making false assurances: V.R. v. M.K.N

 FACTS: Complainant-electronic engineer has his business premises and a complex and next to him and
in the same complex-legal consultancy firm by the respondent.
 R showed many plots- promised the settle the one selected- C was asked to pay some amount by the R
as an advance for purchase
 few days later- R demanded more money- paid through cheque. R started avoiding the complainant.
After continuous efforts C served promissory noted for half the amount and half the amount through
cheque.
 R contended- there is no client and advocate relation between them and complaint must be dismissed-
the only relation between them is of creditor and debtor- it is only a civil case.
 JUDGEMENT: in the view of the pending litigation between the parties. BCI though it proper to take a
lenient view in respect of punishment and even though the misconduct was of very serious nature. The
R was suspended from practice for 2 years.
Case 41: C.L v. N.T.S (Identifying wrong person before
court)

 Facts :- land of complainant was acquired by state along with some other lands. State deposited
compensation amount in court. List contained name of some other person . Third person
withdrew the amount. Respondent committed misconduct. The person who withdrew money
realised his mistake and redeposited the amount in court.
• Issue :- is the respondent guilty of misconduct by identifying wrong person in court?
 Judgement :- No case of misconduct was made against the respondent advocate. The complaint
was dismissed.
Case 42: C.L v. N.T.S (Cheating the client)

 Facts :- complainant wanted to initiate legal proceedings against her neighbour and in that
connection she contacted respondent. Respondent demanded some money towards his fees and
expenses and same was paid by complainants husband. Later respondent kept demanding more
money. Respondent refused to disclose details about case. Later on inquiry this turned to be fake
there and respondent told that a new fresh suit is filed. And also respondent filed 10% more fee
than that of court fee. Respondent denied above mentioned allegations.
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
 Judgment :- The D.C of B.C.I was satisfied that respondent was guilty of professional
misconduct. The respondent was suspended from practice and cost of 2000 was awarded to
complainant.
Case 43: D.C APPEAL NO. 10/88 1989

 Facts:- The respondent advocate while practicing as an advocate obtained a license for running an
arrack shop in his name. He was carrying on the sale of arrack and running the shop. This
amounted to professional misconduct and he should be dealt with in accordance with law.
 Issues :- 1. Whether the Respondent has obtained license in his name as benamidar for his Father
and brother?
2. Whether lending name for the purpose of getting a license for running arrack Shop would
amount to professional misconduct? 3. If so, questioned what punishment?
 Judgement :- Respondent has separated from his father and brother and was living with his wife
and children. He only wanted to help his father and brother. He was not a beneficiary of the
business. Appellant had expressed his regret and also prayed for mercy as otherwise his life would
be in distress as it would be very difficult for him to support the family consisting of wife and
children, if such severe sentence of suspension was not set aside. He had also undertaken not to
indulge in any such illegal activities in future.
Case 44:V.N v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA (WORKING FOR
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE)

 Facts :- The Respondent-Advocate was tried and convicted for committing offences under sec.
121A, 102B, r/w secs. 302, 122 and 124A r/w secs. 109 and 114, and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for varying periods up to two years. She was convicted for a political offence
which is quite different in nature from other offences under the Indian Penal Code, which involve
moral turpitude. She has already been punished by the criminal courts for having committed the
offence and she cannot be again convicted by the D.C. of either S.B.C. or of the B.C.I. for the
same offence and that would amount to double jeopardy.
 Issues :- Whether the act leading to a conviction is such as could shock the moral conscience of
the society in general? Whether the motive which led to the act is a base one?
 Judgment :- The appeal was dismissed. The order of the D.C. of the Bar Council of Maharashtra
was confirmed and the appellant was held guilty of misconduct as defined under section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961, and the reprimand passed by the D.C. of the Bar Council of Maharashtra
was confirm
Case 45: D.C APPEAL NO. 23/87 1989
 • Facts:- Respondent is a close relative of the Complainant and he was the counsel of Complainant’s
parents during their lifetime. After the death of the Complainant’s parents, Respondent continued to
give legal advice to the Complainant. This confidence was misused by the Respondent. He planned to
grab Complainant’s property which she got from her parents. On the basis of a false document he
obtained a decree of specific performance of a contract in respect of her property in his favour, and also
obtained an order of ejectment against her. Respondent denied the case of the Complainant. He stated
that on the basis of a sale agreement he filed a suit against the Complainant which was decreed with
costs in his favour. Complainant’s appeal has been dismissed by the High Court and she has preferred
an appeal before the Supreme Court. He also stated that his subsequent petition for ejectment and suit
for recovery of arrears of rent were also decided in his favour. He had not committed any misconduct.
 Issues :- 1. Whether the Respondent has committed any professional or other misconduct? 2. What
relief?
 Judgement :- The B.C.I. was of the opinion that professional or other misconduct had not been proved
in the case against the Respondent. The D.C. of the B.C.I. further observed that the fact that the
Respondent was guilty of misconduct on earlier occasions cannot be considered too hold him guilty in
this case. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the judgement and order and sentence passed by the
Punjab and Haryana S.B.C. against the Respondent was set aside
Case 46: DC APPEAL NO. 6/18 1988

 Facts:- Complainant is the Power of Attorney-holder of a woman whose cases were conducted by
the Respondent. The Complainant in his capacity of Power of Attorney-holder gave instructions
and supplied evidence to the Respondent. There was a dispute among the Complainant and he is
niece, and the Respondent represented the niece in some litigation. He had taken all details about
the properties involved in these litigations from the Complainant when he was acting as the Power
of Attorney-holder of the said woman. Hence the Respondent has committed professional
misconduct by appearing against him.
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
 Judgment :- It was admitted by the Complainant that he had not seen the Respondent after the
cancellation of the power of attorney. So it was also not disputed that the Respondent had never
represented the Complainant in his personal capacity. Therefore, there is no relationship of a client
and Advocate between the Complainant and the Respondent. Therefore, the DC of Maharashtra
S.B.C. held that there was no misconduct of the Respondent if he has represented the opposite
party in a suit against the Complainant
Case 47: C.D v. S.S 1988 IBR 197
 Facts :- The respondent- Advocate represented the Complainant in an appeal and the complainant paid
Rs. 3,500/- in three instalments to the respondent towards fees and expenses. After filing the appeal
and getting it admitted the respondent did not give any information to the complainant in respect of its
progress even when the complainant met her from time to time. Respondent admitted that complainant
was referred to her buy another advocate, the reference was without any instruction and papers either
from the complainant or from other advocate. Therefore, she requested the complainant to bring
papers without which she could not give her advice but the complainant did not comply with the
respondent’s request. Finally, respondent wrote a letter dated 2.7.1975 calling up on the complainant to
see her along with all the papers failings which she would be forced to retire, and also stated that if
further instruction and papers are not given, her duties in the case ended without any outstanding
claims whatsoever. Respondent further denied that she had taken the fees as alleged in the complainant
and that she was attending the complainant in the appeal. •
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
 Judgment :- It was held that the respondent has withdrawn from the case without giving sufficient
reason and choice. The DC of the BCI held that the respondent had committed professional
misconduct within the provisions of section 35 of the Advocated Act. But as the matter was a long
pending one, DC of the BCI gave the punishment of only reprimand under section 35(3) (b)
Case 48: A.K v. R S DC APPEAL NO. 41/1986
 Facts :- In the judgment in a suit conducted by the respondent-advocate before complainant, the
complainant made certain remarks against the respondent advocate. The Respondent issues a
notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court directed him to refer the
matter to the Andhra Pradesh S.B.C. therefore the S.B.C. initiated suo motto inquiry against the
complainant. Respondent admitted that he had issued the notice to the complainant, but that was
because of anxiety. He did not have an intention to proceed against the complainant. He also
brought it to the notice of the B.C.I that he had been prosecuted for contempt of court and in
those proceedings he had tendered his apology to the High Court.
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct?
 Judgment :- The appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh S.B.C.; The
D.C of the B.C.I expressed that the respondent should behave himself properly in future, and
should not indulge in any such activities. The court cautioned the respondent to behave as a
member of the noble profession.
Case 49: G v. O DC APPEAL NO. 33/1986

 Facts :- Complainant had engaged the Respondent for legal services and had paid him some
amount towards fees and expenses. He had also signed vakalatnama in his favour. Respondent
advised the Complainant that he would be informed about the progress of the proceedings. But in
spite of several reminds Respondent did not inform the Complainant about the progress in the
matter. Respondent did not appear before the D.C of the S.B.C •
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct? •
 Judgement :- The D.C of the B.C.I came into conclusion that the records clearly showed that
there was no intentional lapse on the part of the respondent-advocate. At the same time the B.C.I
observed that the respondent-advocate had not cared to act in a manner befitting an advocate in
the interest of his client. In the result of the appeal was partly allowed. The finding by misconduct
was upheld and punishment was reduced from suspension to reprimand.
Case 50: G v. T APPEAL NO. 21/1985
 Facts :- Complainant and other co-sharers in a land acquired by the government were awarded
compensation in some land acquisitions matters. The Respondent-advocate was authorised to
receive the compensation money from the collector after complying with the necessary legal
formalities. Respondent denied that he had received money from the collector on behalf of the
complainant. But during the proceedings before the D.C of the S.B.C. he asserted that he had
received the cheque on behalf of the complainant and after encashing it he had handed over the
cash to his registered clerk for delivering it to the complainant. He prayed for summoning the
clerk. The clerk denied that the signature on the receipt was his signature and maintained that it
was the signature of the complainant.
 Issues :- Is respondent guilty of professional misconduct? •
 Judgment :- The Respondent at first denied that he had received money on behalf of the
complainant. Then he said that he had received the cheque and after encashing it he had sent the
money to the complainant through his clerk. Therefore, DC of the SBC held that the respondent
was guilty of professional misconduct by misappropriating client’s money. In a result, his name
was removed from the Roll of Advocates. This order was confirmed by the DC of the B.C.I. D.C
of the B.C.C further awarded costs of Rs.500 to the complainant.
Case 51: S AND H V. T(MISUSE OF POSITION OF
ADVOCATE AND CONFIDENCE OF THE CLIENT), BCI
TR. CASE NO. 43/1982, 1988 IBR 364.
Facts - Respondent made an offer to Complainants that the Complainant No. 1, the wife of the
Respondent and another two persons could form a partnership for the manufacturing and sale of bricks.
Later on, the Respondent executed a partnership deed excluding his wife and Complainant No.1.
Complainant realized the foul play on the part of the Respondent an approached him for the rendition of
accounts. He denied the facts of payment of money to him by the Complainant No.
ISSUES - Whether the advocate is liable for misuse of power as advocate? Whether the evidence
produced by the complainant was satisfactory or not? Whether the advocate committed breach of trust
with his clients? Whether the advocate is liable for the professional misconduct?
JUDGEMENT – D.C. of B.C.I. stated that There was no evidence that the Respondent's wife was
carrying on the brick-making business, or that he was involved in it. No independent evidence of his
involvement in the business was placed on the record. Simply because the Respondent was the counsel
to the Complainants and that resulted into friendship does not mean that any act committed thereafter
would lead to professional misconduct. APPEAL DISMISSED
Case 52: J. VS. SMT. A. (MISUSE OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCE), 1988
IBR 374, D.C. APPEAL NO. 28/1986,

FACTS - Complainant and her husband negotiated for the purchase of some immovable property in
Bangalore. Complainant paid Rs. 23,000 to the Respondent for purchasing the stamp papers
necessary for executing the sale deed. The Respondent gave her a cheque for Rs. 21,000 which came
to be dishonoured.
ISSUES - Whether the advocate commit misappropriate of money? Whether the advocate misused
the client trust and confidence? Whether the punishment awarded by the court was appropriate or
not? Whether the advocate acted in good faith or not?
JUDGEMENT - The B.C.I. did not find it correct to discharge the Respondent- Advocate from the
liability of misconduct committed by him. The Respondent admitted that he had given money to his
clerk for the purchase of stamps but the clerk had disappeared with the money and Advocate had
filed a police complaint.
The B.C.I. was of the opinion that the removal of the name of the Respondent from the state Roll was
too harsh. Therefore, it was reduced to reprimand.
Case 53: P v. V (Appearing for Both Sides), 14(2) IBR 314,
D.C. Appeal No. 64/1974,

FACTS- Complainant engaged Respondent-Advocate to represent him in a suit by paying him Rs.
250 towards his professional fees. The Respondent filed his vakalatnama and appeared for the
Defendant in the said suit. Complainant then demanded that the Respondent should retire from the
case. But, he did not agree and is guilty of professional misconduct.
ISSUES- Whether the punishment given by The D. C. of the S. B. C adequate or should it be
enhanced? Whether the respondent is guilty of misconduct or not, and whether the money received
from the complaint is misappropriated or not.
JUDGEMENT - The D.C. of the S.B. Complainant submits that if the Respondent withdraws from
the case, he would withdraw his complaint. Respondent says he will represent the Plaintiff otherwise
it would amount to "putting a premium on dishonest and fraudulent action".
Therefore, the D.C. of the S.B.C. was pleased to dismiss the complaint. The order of the D.C. of
S.B.C. was upheld by the D.C. of the B.C.I., and the appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed
with costs of Rs. 500.
Case 54: M V. R (MISAPPROPRIATION OF CLIENTS
MONEY), 14(2) 1987 1 BR 319, DC. APPEAL NO 38/1984

FACTS- Complaint had engaged the respondent in the eviction petition in a case. The respondent won the
case for the complaint and the tenant preferred revision petition before the District Judge, Mysore. The
amount was withdrawn by the respondent. Respondent admitted the withdrawal of money but he claimed
that the amount was slightly less than what was stated in the complaint.
ISSUES- Whether the Respondent had paid money to the Complainant and obtained the receipt as averred
by him? If not, was the punishment given by the D.C. of the S.B.C. adequate or should it? Be enhanced?
JUDGEMENT- The version of the Respondent was totally rejected by the D.C. and he was found guilty of
misconduct by misappropriation of client’s money and also by his conduct he had brought down the dignity
of the profession.
The D.C. of the S.B.C. recorded conviction and sentenced the Respondent with suspension for a period of
one year. The D.C. of the B.C.I. felt the punishment inadequate and ordered the removal of the name of the
Respondent from the State Roll.
Case 55: (NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING CASE), 14(3)
1987 IBR 488, D.C. APPEAL NO. 40/1986, JUDGEMENT
DATED 27TH APRIL, 1987.
FACTS - Complainant obtained a temporary injunction against her husband restraining him from contracting a
second marriage. Thus, due to the negligence of the Respondent in conducting the case, the Complainant is put
to great loss. Respondent’s Case: Respondent honestly admitted that he did not appear in the case on the said
date and hence the suit was dismissed. Before the Respondent could move an application for restoration, the
Complainant withdrew the brief from him.
PROCEEDINGS- It found that there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent in the non-prosecution of
the case, but he was negligent in not filing the restoration application. In the appeal, the Respondent produced a
certified copy of an application filed by the Complainant in the Court of District and Sessions Judge expressing
apprehension that her husband may remarry. to disbelieve the Respondent’s version that he was not given any
opportunity by the Complainant to file a restoration application, especially when the same had gone
unchallenged by the Complainant.
ORDER - Therefore, the appeal was allowed and their order and judgement of the D.C. of the S.B.C. was
reversed setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Respondent was exonerated of all the charges levelled
against him.
Case 56: R V. L.J (WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS), 14(3) 1987 IBR
491, D.C. APPEAL NO. 10/1986 D.C. APPEAL NO. 10A/1986,.
JUDGEMENT DATED 4TH AUGUST, 1987

FACTS- Complainant entrusted a Promissory Note to Respondent to issue a notice to a debtor, and
had paid fees therefor. Complainant demanded the notice back so that he could file a suit through
some other Advocate. But the Respondent-Advocate refused and demanded exorbitant fee through a
notice. The Respondent did not take any step to return the promissory note and the lawsuit became
time barred.
ISSUES- 1. Whether the failure on the part of the Respondent to return the documents to the
Complainant amounted to misconduct?
2. If so, is the punishment awarded by the lower D.C. sufficient?
ORDER- The D.C. of the B.C.I. agreed with the decision of the D.C. of the S.B.C. on the first issue,
but modified the order of the D.C. of the S.B.C. by adding costs of Rs. 1,000. The D.C. of the B.C.I.
did not interfere to modify the order of suspension by enhancing it as the Complainant had already
initiated civil proceedings to recover the damages for the loss caused him.
Case 57: K v. V (August, 1987 Forgery and Misappropriation of
Money), 14(3) 1987 IBR 496, D.C. Appeal No. 7/1986

FACTS- Complainant had filed a suit for recovery of money from the Defendant. He filed an application for
attachment before judgement in respect of the defendant's money. The Complainant made enquiry in the
Court and found that the Respondent had forged his signature on legal papers.
PROCEEDINGS- Complainant passed away even before the date of first hearing before the D.C. of the S.B.
The son of the deceased Complainant appeared with Power of Attorney from other Legal Representatives.
Documents clearly showed that the Respondent had forged the signatures of the Complainant.
JUDGEMENT- The D.C of the S.B.C. I found the Respondent guilty of forgery and
misappropriation and therefore of professional misconduct. The nature of the misconduct
committed by him was very grave and he is unfit to be in the legal profession. The
Respondent had no reason to believe that proceedings against him would be dropped.
ORDER- Therefore D.C. of B.C.I. was pleased to uphold the sentence of the D.C. of the
S.B.C. removing the name of the Respondent from the Roll of the S.B.C.
Case 58: C V. P(NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING CASE,
INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE COMPLAINT),IBR
735, DC. APPEAL NO.7/1981,
FACTS- Complainant and his wife wanted to purchase flat and they entered into an agreement for the purchase of a flat with an
estate agent, and also paid him advance money. But the estate agent tried to dupe them. In the meanwhile, the complainant
could recover almost the entire amount from the agent with the help of the police. Respondent had drafted the police complaint
and it was agreed that the respondent should adjust RS.500 towards expenses for effecting the compromise through police and
RS.1500 were his fee. He also contended that the complainant had filed the complaint only after six years.
ISSUES- This case raises certain fundamental issues of legal ethics an advocate duty towards his clients and how an advocate
should deal with his clients’ money entrusted to him for legal expenses. In this case there is also a professional misconduct by
the lawyer.
PROCEEDINGS - The respondent had refunded RS.1000 to the complaint after deducting Rs 2000 towards his professional
charges. DC of the BCI accepted all the contention of the respondents and expressed its reluctance to believe that the aggrieved
complainant would have waited for a long period of six years before filing the complaint.
ORDER- Hence it allowed the appeal and the conviction and sentence passed by and the lower DC was set aside. The D.C of
the BCI did not deem it necessary to give its opinion on point limitation.
Case 59: A V. P(FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTS,
MISAPPROPRIATION OF MONEY, WITHHOLDING OF
DOCUMENTS), 14(4) 1987 IBR745, D.C APPEAL NO.12/1986,

FACTS- Complainant Case - Complainant used to entrust his cases to the respondent-advocate for
several years. He pleaded that he used to help the complainant at the time of financial distress by
obtaining loans for him. It was further contended that the respondent used to repay the loans from the
rents received by him on behalf of the complainant. He also claimed that the complainant was in
arrears of fees.
PROCEEDINGS- The DC of the SBC dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant against the
respondent. The complainant failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts. The D.C found
that the respondent had returned the case papers to the complainant and never withheld any money
from him.
ORDER- In the result, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the lower DC was upheld.
Case 60: C V. M (FILING FORGED VAKALATAMA,
REPRESENTING A CLIENT WITHOUT AUTHORITY), 14(4)
1987 IBR 753, DC APPEAL NO.57/1987,
FACTS - Complainant case- Complainants husband filed a divorce petition against her. The summons of the
case was never served up on her. The complainant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against her husband
for restraining him from contracting a second marriage. In that case her husband produced a divorce decree
dissolving their marriage. She being an illiterate lady could not sign and she used to put her thumb
impressions. Therefore, the signature on the false vakalatnama was not her signature.
PROCEEDINGS- The respondent was guilty of serious misconduct of a very grave nature. He had filed
vakalatmama and represented the complaint without her authority and knowledge. Complainant also changed the
address and did not intimate the change of address to the BCI or to the SBC.
ORDER- Therefore, the respondent-advocate was suspended from the practice for a period of six months. The
DC of the BCI took tenanted view because the respondent-advocate had put in only five years of practice.