Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

CONTENTSPAGE
TABLEOFCASES..01

INTRODUCTION...............03

WHATISPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT?...................................04

BRIEFFACTSOFTHECASE..07

CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIESAND
JUDGMENTOFTHECOURT.08

LEGALPROVISIONSINVOLVED.11

CONCLUSION....13

LEADINGCASESOFPROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCTININDIA.....15

BIBILOGRAPHY...........19

1Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

TABLEOFCASES
Cases....PageNo
Bar Council of Maharashtra V. N.V. Dolholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242State (Delhi)..05
Re Tulsidas Amanmal, AIR 1941 Bombay 228.05
V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1997 SC 1014 05
Administration) v. Pali Ram, 1979(1) SCR 931.08
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju................................................................................................................12
G.Sridher & Anr. v. State of A.P. 2005(2) RCR(Cri.) 116 A.P....13
New Delhi Bar Ass. (Regd.) & Ors. v. National Capital Territory of Delhi Govt. of Delhi,
2004(2) RCR (Cri.) 40 Delhi. ...15
U.O.I. v. Gulshan Bajwa, JT 2003(8) (SC) 440.15
Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish Kumar Ranchhoddas Patel, 2003 Cri.L.J. 3984 Guj. .15
N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao, 20003 (2) RCR (Cri. ) 424 (SC)15
R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 166 (P&H)..15
Bar Council of A. P. v Kurapati Satyanarayana, 2003 SCC (Cri.) 155: AIR 2003 SC 175.15
Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 429(Karnataka)15
MCS- Barna v. C.B. Ramanurthy, 2002 (3) RCR (Cri.) 696 (Karnataka).15
Harish Chander Tiwari v. Baiju, 2002 SCC (Cri,) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548..16
Mohd. Khalid v . State of Wst Bangal ,2002 (4) Crimes 160 (SC) 16
Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. Bar Ass. Pathankot, Jt 2001 (9) (SC) 480: AIR 2002 SC 41...16
Mathai v. Principal Distt. & Sessions Judge,
1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 1 Kerala 1999 (2) RCR (Cri.) 373 (SC)..16
P.K. Sharma v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1999 SC 98..16
Vinay Balchandra Joshi v. Registrar General , supreme Court of India, AIR 1999 SC 107..16
Bapurao khiddey v. Suman doudey, JT 1999 (1) (SC) 273 : AIR 1999 SC 91616
Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR 1999 SC 902.16
2Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

Balbir Singh v.State of Punjab, 1984 cri. L.J. 42116


D.S. Dalal v. State Bank of India, 1993 (2) RRR 116: AIR 1993 SC 1608...16
Giri Raj Parshad Sharma v. Rajasthan Uni. 1987 civil Court Cases 3717
B. M. Verma v. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission...............................................................................17
Court of Its Own Motion v. State.............................................................................................................17
SC Bar Association v. Union of India......................................................................................................17
Hikmat Ali khan v. Ishwar prasad arya and ors.......................................................................................17
Vinay chandra mishra, in re.....................................................................................................................17
Ex-capt. Harish uppal V. Union of India..................................................................................................17
Rajendra V. Pai Vs. Alex Fernandes and Ors.........................................................................................17
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju................................................................................................................17
Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry......................................................................................18

3Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

INTRODUCTION

Anadvocateisthemostaccountable,privilegedanderuditepersonofthesocietyandhisact
arerolemodelforthesociety,whicharenecessarytoberegulated.Professionalmisconduct
is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable or worthy of its
membership by the governing body of a profession. Professional misconduct refers to
disgracefulordishonourableconductnotbefittinganadvocate.[1]
Generally the legal profession is not a trade or business, its a gracious, the noble, and
decontaminatedprofessionofthesociety.Membersbelongingtothisprofessionhavenotto
encourage deceitfulness and corruption, but they have to strive to secure justice to their
clients. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which
the members of the profession conduct themselves. Its a symbol of healthy relationship
betweenBarandBench.Thereisheavyresponsibilityonthoseonwhomdutiesarevested
bythevirtueofbeingapartofmymostcredibleasplausibleprofessionofthesociety.

The instant case is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India regarding
ProfessionalMisconductasenvisagedunderSection35ofTheAdvocatesAct,1961.The
casecameuptotheSupremeCourtasanappealU/S.38oftheAdvocatesAct,1961beforea
benchcomprisingofS.C.AgrawalandG.B.Pattanaik,JJ.
InthepresentcasetheappellanthadbeenheldguiltyofseriousProfessionalMisconductby
theBarCouncilofindiauponanenquirythroughitsDisciplinaryCommittee.TheSupreme
Court,onappeal,examinedthesameandcametoaconclusionthattheappellanthadindeed,
violatedthetrustplaceduponhimandcommittedabreachofhisdutyasanadvocate.Hewas
heldguiltyofmisconductundertheAdvocatesAct,1961andpunishedwithreprimand.
Thus the case illustrated a fine point where the judiciary upheld the spirit of law and the
dignityoftheLegalprofession.Thiscasewascitedinlatercasesasaprecedentwherethe
issueofmisappropriationorwrongfulretentionoftheclientsmoneywasinvolvedincases
ofallegedmisconductbytheadvocates.
[1]www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
4Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

WHATISPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT?
Misconduct: it is a sufficiently wide expression: it is not necessary that it should involve
moralturpitude.Anyconductwhichinanywayrendersamanunfitfortheexerciseofhis
professionorislikelytohamperorembarrasstheadministrationofjusticemaybeconsidered
tobemisconductcallingfordisciplinaryaction.Itcannotbesaidthatanadvocatecannever
bepunishedforprofessionalmisconductcommittedbyhiminhispersonalcapacity.
TheAdvocatesAct,1961aswellIndianBarCouncilaresilentinprovidingexactdefinition
for profession misconduct because of its scope, though under Advocate Act, 1961 to take
disciplinary action punishment are prescribed when the credibility and reputation on the
professioncomesunderacloutonaccountofactsofomissionandcommissionanymember
oftheprofession.
Thegeneralmeaningofthewords,professionalorothermisconductsunderSection35of
Advocatesact,1961ismisconductinprofessionalorothercapacity.
ThisconcepthasevolvedfromSection13ofLegalPractitionersAct,1879whichhad
classifiedmisconductofalawyerasfollows:
1. Pleaderwhotakesinstructionsinanycaseexceptfromthepartyonwhombehalfheis
retainedorsomepersonwhoistherecognizedagentofsuchpartyorsomeservantor
relativeorfriendauthorizedbythepartytogivesuchinstructions
2. Pleaderwhoisguiltyoffraudulentorgrosslyimproperconductinthedischargeofhis
professionalduties.
3. Pleaderwhotendersorgivesconsentstotheretentionoutofanyfeeorpayabletohim
forhisservicesofanygratificationforprocuringorhavingprocuredtheemployment
inanylegalbusinessofhimselforanyotherpleader
4. Pleaderwhodirectlyorindirectlyprocuresorattemptstoprocuretheemploymentof
himself or such pleader through or buy intervention of any person to whom an
remuneration for obtaining such employment has been given by him or agreed or
promisedtobesogiven
5. Pleader who accepts any employment or legal business through a person who has
beenproclaimedasatoutundersection36
6. Pleaderwhoisguiltyofanyotherreasonablecause.

5Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
ChapterVoftheAdvocatesAct,1961dealswiththeConductofAdvocates.Sec35deals
with provisions pertaining to Punishment to an Advocate in a case of Professional
misconduct.Subsection1ofSection35providesforthatwhereuponreceiptofacomplaint
orotherwiseaStatebarCouncilhasreasontobelievethatanyadvocateonitsrollhasbeen
guilty of professional or other misconducts, it shall refer the case for disposal to its
DisciplinaryCommittee.
According to Subsection 1A of Section 35, the State Bar Council may, either of its own
motionoronapplicationmadetoitbyanypersoninterestedtowithdrawaprecedingpending
beforeitsdisciplinarycommitteeanddirecttheenquirytobemadebyanyotherdisciplinary
committee of state bar council sec 35(2) provides that disciplinary committee of state bar
councilshallfixthedateforhearingofthecase,andshallcauseanoticehereoftobegivento
theadvocateconcernedandAdvocateGeneralofthestate.
Subsec3ofsec35providesthatdisciplinarycommitteeofstatebarcouncilaftergivingthe
advocateconcernedandAdvocateGeneralanopportunityofbeingheard,maymakeany
ofthefollowingorders,namely:
(a) Dismissthecomplaintor,wheretheproceedingswereinitiatedattheinstanceof
theStateBarCouncil,directthattheproceedingsbefiled
(b) Reprimandtheadvocate
(c) Suspendtheadvocatefrompracticeforsuchperiodasitmaydeemedfit
(d) RemovethenameoftheadvocatefromtheStaterollofadvocates.
Sub sec 4 of sec 35 lays down that Where an advocate is suspended from practice under
clause(c) of subsection (3) he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from
practicinginanycourtorbeforeanyauthorityorpersoninIndia.
Sub sec 5 of sec 35 lays down that 5) Where any notice is issued to the AdvocateGeneral
undersubsection(2),theAdvocateGeneralmayappearbeforethedisciplinarycommitteeof
theStateBarCouncileitherinpersonorthroughanyadvocateappearingonhisbehalf.
InBarCouncilofMaharashtraV.N.V.Dolholkar,AIR1976SC242,theSupremeCourthas
heldthat
onreceiptofcomplaint,thebarcouncilisrequiredtoapplyitsmindtofindoutwhetherthere
is any reason to believe that any advocate has been guilty of professional or other

6Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
misconduct. In this has, it has not been done, hence the proceeding before the disciplinary
committee.[2]

InReTulsidasAmanmal,AIR1941Bombay228,ithasbeenheldbyBombayHighCourt
that
the term misconduct is a sufficiently wide expression. It is not necessary that it should
involvemoralturpitude.Anyconductwithinanywayrendersamanunfitfortheexerciseof
hisprofessionalorislikelytohamperorembarrasstheadministrationofjusticebysuperior
court or any of the other courts subordinate thereto, may be considered to be misconduct
callingforthedisciplinaryaction.[3]

The Supreme Court has held in V.P. Kumaravelu v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1997 SC
1014,that
grossnegligenceinthedischargeofdutiespartakestheshadesofdelinquencyandwould
undoubtedly amount to professional misconduct. Similarly, a conduct which amounts to
dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client or towards his case, would amount to
professionalmisconduct.Butthenegligencewithoutmoralturpitudeordelinquencymaynot
amounttoprofessionalmisconduct,[4]

[2]www.indiankanoon.org/cached/1959104
[3]www.legalserviceindia.com
[4]www.manupatrainternational.in
7Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

BRIEFFACTSOFTHECASE
1. ThecasecameupasanappealtotheSupremeCourtunderSection38oftheAdvocates
Act, 1961. It was filed by the appellant Prahlad Saran Gupta, who was an advocate
practicing at Ghaziabad. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Disciplinary
CommitteeofBarCouncilofIndia.
2. The Disciplinary Committee had found the appellant guilty of serious professional
misconductandhadimposedthepunishmentofsuspensionfrompracticeforoneyear.
3. TheappellantwasappearingforthedecreeholderinthecaseofM/s.AtmaRamNanak
Chandv.ShriRamContractorintheCourtofCivilJudge,Ghaziabad.
4. Thereafter, the U.P. State Bar Council received a complaint from Rajendra Prasad, a
partner of the firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand wherein he made a number of
allegationsagainsttheappellant.
5. TheappellantfiledareplytotheStateBarCouncilanddeniedallsuchallegations.
6. TheStateBarCouncilthereuponreferredthecasetooneofitsDisciplinaryCommittees
butthesaidCommitteecouldnotcompletetheproceedingsintheprescribedtimeofone
year and, therefore, the proceedings were transferred to the Bar Council of India under
Section 36b of the Act and thereafter the Disciplinary Committee dealt with the
proceedings.
7. The Disciplinary Committee has, however, found the appellant guilty of gross
professionalmisconductonthebasisofitsfindings.
8. ThusthepresentappealwasfiledunderSection38oftheAdvocatesAct,1961beforethe
SupremeCourt.

8Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIESANDJUDGMENT
OFTHECOURT
The appellant denied having committed any Misconduct, professional or otherwise. He
challengedtheDisciplinaryCommitteesfindingsonvariouscounts.
1. Disciplinary Committee had held the appellant guilty of professional misconduct on
thebasisofthechargerelatingtonoticeunderSection80C.P.C.havingbeendrafted
bytheappellant.Itwasallegedthatsincetheappellantwashimselfastandingcounsel
fortheRailways,heshouldnthavedraftedanoticeagainstthesame.
2. ShriR.B.Mehrotra,thelearnedseniorcounselappearingfortheappellantsubmitted
thattheDisciplinaryCommitteehaderredinitsfinding.Theappellantsubmittedthat
thesaidchargewasnotcontainedinthecomplaintfiledbythecomplainantandwas
put forward for the first time before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar
Councilbythecomplainantinhisapplication.
3. Furthermore, and more importantly, the request of the appellant for examination of
thehandwritinginthedraftofthenoticebyanexperttoshowthatthesaiddraftofthe
notice was not in the handwriting of the appellant was rejected by the Disciplinary
Committee.Thus,theDisciplinaryCommitteewasinerrorinholding,onthebasisof
a comparison by itself of the admitted handwriting of the appellant with the
handwritingin,thatthesamewaswrittenbytheappellant.
4. The Court held that despite having made a request to the Disciplinary Committee
for expert examination of handwriting in order to compare his handwriting with the
oneintheNotice,theDisciplinaryCommitteerejectedtherequestandarrivedatsuch
conclusiononitsown,throughitsowncomparison.
5. Such rejection of the request was done by the Disciplinary Committee citing the
reasonthatnousefulpurposewouldbeservedbecausetheallegationrelatingtothe
saiddocumentwasnotcontainedoriginallyinthecomplaint.TheCourtruledthat
Thus, having rejected the request for sending the said document to a handwriting
expertforexaminationontheviewthatthesaidallegationwasnotcontainedinthe
complaintasoriginallyfiled,theDisciplinaryCommitteewasinerroringoingintothe
merits of the said allegation and furthermore in comparing the writing in the said
documentwiththehandwritingoftheappellantwithouttheassistanceoftheopinion

9Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
ofahandwritingexpertandincomingtotheconclusionthatthesaiddocumentwasin
thehandwritingoftheappellant.
6. The court also made a reference to the judgment in the case of State (Delhi

Administration)v.PaliRam,1979(1)SCR931[5],whereinitwasheldbytheHonble
SupremeCourtthat
although there is no legal bar on the examination of handwriting by a judge, he
should,asamatterofprudenceandcaution,hesitatetobasehisfindingwithregard
totheidentityofahandwritingwhichformsthesheetanchoroftheprosecutioncase
againstapersonaccusedofanoffencesolelyoncomparisonmadebyhimself.Itis,
therefore,notadvisablethataJudgeshouldtakeuponhimselfthetaskofcomparing
theadmittedwritingwiththedisputedonetofindoutwhetherthetwoagreewitheach
otherandtheprudentcourseistoobtaintheopinionandassistanceofanexpert.''[P.
944]

7. Thecourttherefore,ruledagainstthefindingoftheDisciplinaryCommitteethatthe
appellant was guilty of serious professional misconduct due to him having prepared
thedraftNoticeU/S.80C.P.C.whichwasservedtotheRailways.Thecourtstated
that, this offence was of quasicriminal nature and hence, required proof beyond
reasonabledoubt,whichcouldonlyhavebeenestablishedthroughtheaidofanexpert
inordertocomparethehandwriting.
8. TheCourtfurtherrejectedthebarCouncilsfindingthattheappellantwasguiltyof
misconductwithregardtothelettersenttoShriV.K.Gupta.Thecourtheldthatno
reliancecouldbeplacedontheevidenceofShriRamthattheappellanthadhanded
overthatletter(addressedtoShriV.K.Gupta,Advocate,atAllahabad)toShriRam
for the purpose of his obtaining stay of execution proceedings from the Allahabad
HighCourt,inwhichtheappellantwasengagedonbehalfoftheDecreeholder.
9. The only count on which the Court did find the appellant guilty of Professional
Misconduct was regarding the withholding of the money due to the Decree holder.
The appellant wrongfully retained Rs. 1,500/ with himself, which were due to the
decreeholder.
10. Theappellantclaimedthatthatthesaidsumwasplacedwithhimbyboththeparties,
namely, Shri Nanak Chand, partner of firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand (decree
holder),andShriRam(judgmentdebtor)inconnectionwithasettlementwhichwas
beingnegotiatedbetweenthem,andthattheappellantrefusedtopaythesaidmoney
[5]AIR1979SC14:SCR931

10Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
tothedecreeholder,forthereasonthatitcouldbepaidonlyifajointreceiptofboth
thepartieswashandedovertohim.
11. ThiswasrejectedbytheSupremeCourt.Evenwhensuchproposedsettlementdidnot
fructify, the appellant did not return the amount of Rs. 1,500/ either to the decree
holder or to the judgment debtor and continued to retain the same with him till he
depositeditinthecourtonMay2,1978.
12. TheCourtfurtherobservedthattheordersheetoftheexecutioncaseshowsthatthe
proceedingshadterminatedonApril4,1978,whereas,theamountwasreturnedonly
onMay2,1978whenhedepositeditinthecourt.
13. The Court held that this was not in consonance with the standards of professional
ethicsexpectedfromaseniormemberoftheprofessionandamountedtoProfessional
MisconductforhishavingwrongfullyretainedRs.1,500/whichhadbeenkeptwith
himinconnectionwiththesettlementintheexecutionproceedings.
14. TheCourtfurtherorderedapunishmentofreprimandtobeimposedontheappellant
forthesaidmisconductonhispart.

11Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

LEGALPROVISIONSINVOLVED
THEADVOCATESACT,1961
CHAPTERV:SEC35
PUNISHMENTOFADVOCATESFORMISCONDUCT
(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to
believethatanyadvocateitsrollhasbeenguiltyofprofessionalorothermisconduct,
itshallreferthecasefordisposaltoitsdisciplinarycommittee.
[(1A)TheStateBarCouncilmay,eitherofitsownmotionoronapplicationmadeto
it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending before its disciplinary
committeemiddirecttheinquirytobemadebyanyotherdisciplinarycommitteeof
thatStateBarCouncil]
(2) ThedisciplinarycommitteeofaStateCouncilshallfixadateforthehearingofthe
caseandshallcauseanoticethereoftobegiventotheadvocateconcernedandtothe
AdvocateGeneraloftheState.
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate
concernedandtheAdvocateGeneralanopportunityofbeingheard,maymakeanyof
thefollowingorders,namely:
(a) Dismissthecomplaintor,wheretheproceedingswereinitiatedattheinstance
oftheStateBarCouncil,directthattheproceedingsbefiled
(b) Reprimandtheadvocate
(c) Suspendtheadvocatefrompracticeforsuchperiodasitmaydeemedfit
(d) RemovethenameoftheadvocatefromtheStaterollofadvocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause(c) of subsection (3) he
shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practicing in any court or
beforeanyauthorityorpersoninIndia.
(5) Where any notice is issued to the AdvocateGeneral under subsection (2), the
AdvocateGeneral may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar
Councileitherinpersonorthroughanyadvocateappearingonhisbehalf.
12Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
[Explanation.Inthissection 1[Section37andSection38]theexpressionAdvocateGeneral'

and'AdvocateGeneraloftheState'shall,inrelationtotheUnionterritoryofDelhi,meanthe
AdditionalSolicitorGeneralofIndia].
1.OmittedbyActNo.107of1976
2.Ins.byActno.21of1964.

CHAPTERV:SEC38
APPEALTOTHESUPREMECOURT
Anypersonaggrievedbyanordermadeby'thedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilof
IndiaunderSection36orSection371[ortheAttorneyGeneralofIndiaortheAdvocate
GeneraloftheStateconcernedasthecasemaybe],withinsixtydaysofthedateonwhichthe
orderiscommunicatedtohim,preferanappealtotheSupremeCourtandtheSupremeCourt
maypasssuchorder1[includinganordervaryingthepunishmentawardedbythedisciplinary
committeeoftheBarCouncilofIndia]thereonasitdeemsfit:
[ProvidedthatnoorderofthedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilofIndiashallbe

variedbytheSupremeCourtsoastoprejudiciallyaffectthepersonaggrievedwithoutgiving
himareasonableopportunityofbeingheard.]
1.Ins.byActNo.60of1973.

13Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

CONCLUSION
Theroleofthelawyersinthesocietyisofgreatimportance.Theybeingpartofthesystemof
deliveringjustice,holdgreatreverenceandrespectinthesociety.Eachindividualhasawell
defined code of conduct which needs to be followed by the person living in the society. A
lawyer, in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his
opponent,adutytothecourt,adutytothesocietyatlargeandadutytohimself[6].Itneeds
a high degree of probity and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous
stand,moreso,whenthereareconflictingclaims.
While discharging duty to the court, a lawyer should never knowingly be a party to any
deception,designorfraud.Whileplacingthelawbeforethecourtalawyerisatlibertytoput
forthapropositionandcanvassthesametothebestofhiswitsandabilitysoastopersuade
anexpositionwhichwouldservetheinterestofhisclientandthesociety.
In the instant case, the Honble Supreme Court of India examined in detail the charges of
professionalmisconductlevelledagainsttheappellant.Hewasfoundtohavebeenguiltyof
thesameashewrongfullywithheldandretainedtheamountsduetotheDecreeholderwith
himselfanddelayedpayingitinspiteofdemands.
Thus, he breached his position of trust which the client had placed on him. This form of
conduct is not worthy of an advocate and hence, the Court ordered that the penalty of
reprimand be imposed upon him. Therefore the appeal was partly allowed. While the
appellant was exonerated on other counts mentioned in the complaint regarding his alleged
misconduct, he was at the same time, held guilty on just one of them, being wrongfully
withholdingthedecreeholdersmoney.
Eveninlatercases,theSupremeCourthasviewedsuchretentionoftheclientsmoneytobe
the gravest form of misconduct. In the case of Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju [7], the
courtheldthat
amongthedifferenttypesofmisconductenvisagedforalegalpractitioner,misappropriation
oftheclientsmoneymustberegardedasoneofthegravest.Inthis

[6]www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
[7]2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
14Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

professional capacity the legal practitioner has to collect money from the client towards
expenses of the litigation, or withdraw money from the court payable to the client or take
moneyoftheclienttobedepositedincourt.Inallsuchcases,whenthemoneyoftheclient
reaches his hand it is a trust. If a public servant misappropriates money he is liable to be
punishedunderthepresentPreventionofCorruptionAct,withimprisonmentwhichshallnot
be less than one year. He is certain to be dismissed from service. But if an advocate
misappropriatesmoneyoftheclientthereisnojustificationindeescalatingthegravityofthe
misdemeanour. Perhaps the dimension of the gravity of such breach of trust would be
mitigated when the misappropriation remained only for a temporary period. There may be
justificationtoawardalesserpunishmentinacasewherethedelinquentadvocatereturned
themoneybeforecommencingthedisciplinaryproceedings.

Thusthestrictestmeasuresneedtobeundertakentopreventandpunishsuchinstancesfrom
taking place and breaching the healthy atmosphere required by the legal system to flourish
smoothlywithmutualtrust.
The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those
whobelongtoitareitshonorablemembers.Althoughtheentrytotheprofessioncanbehad
acquiringmerelythequalificationoftechnicalcompetence,thehonorasaprofessionalhasto
bemaintainedbyitsmembers,bytheirexemplaryconductbothinandoutsidethecourt.

15Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

LEADINGCASESOFPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT
ININDIA
1. Nonappearanceofthecounselinthecaseisprofessionalmisconduct.Forwithdrawal
notice to the client be given. G.Sridher & Anr. v. State of A.P. 2005(2) RCR(Cri.) 116
A.P.
2. Falseaffidavitbydeponentclientregardingtheage.Theadvocatehasnoresponsibility.
NewDelhiBarAss.(Regd.)&Ors.v.NationalCapitalTerritoryofDelhiGovt.ofDelhi,
2004(2)RCR(Cri.)40Delhi.
3. AdvocatesActStatecanappointmorethanoneaddl.AdvocateGeneralsofitschoice.
Thisappointmentisnotconstitutional,ratheritisexecutive.M.T.Khanv.Govt.ofA.P.,
JT2004(1)(SC)146:AIR2004SC2934
4. AllegationsbytheadvocateagainsttheJudgesinReviewpetitionafterdismissalofSLP,
matterreferredtotheBarCounselofIndiafornecessaryaction.U.O.I.v.GulshanBajwa,
JT2003(8)(SC)440.
5. DutyofadvocateOneshouldnotreferajudgmentalreadyoverruledandthatthereisno
other judgment by larger bench.Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. Satish Kumar
RanchhoddasPatel,2003Cri.L.J.3984Guj.
6. Referring wrong arguments or Changing stand at different stages of proceedings is no
offence covering the application of s. 195 Cr. P.C. N. Natrajan v. B. K. Subba Rao,
20003(2)RCR(Cri.)424(SC):AIR2003SC541:2003Cri.L.J.820.ReviewOrder
alreadypassedbytheBarCouncilcanbereviewedevenafter60days.Licencecancelled
isrestored.JT2003(4)(SC)435.B
7. An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business,
ratheritisanofficerofthecourtandlegalprofessionisnotatradeorbusinessratheritis
a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients within
legally permissible limits.R.N. Sharma Advocate v. state of Haryana , 2003 (3) RCR
(Cri)166(P&H).
8. StateBarcouncilhasquasijudicialpoweranditalsoperformtheroleoftheprosecutor
andhence,iscompetenttofileappealbeingaggrievedpersonagainstthejudgmentofthe
BarcouncilofIndia.BarCouncilofA.P.vKurapatiSatyanarayana,2003SCC(Cri.)
155:AIR2003SC175.
9. S. 303 Cr. P.CMemo of appearance is sufficient in criminal case. Vakalatname is not
necessary like the civil case.Ajay Mehta v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri)
429(Karnataka).

16Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
10. Advocate cannot argue his own case as an advocate but he can argue his case while
appearing in person as general public.MCS Barna v. C.B. Ramanurthy, 2002 (3) RCR
(Cri.)696(Karnataka).
11. Rs. 8118 received by the counsel on behalf of his client and kept with him. Then
produced forged documents to establish that he has paid the amount.Licence cancelled
permanently.HarishChanderTiwariv.Baiju,2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC
548.
12. Advocates Act Undue adjournments of the case is an abuse of the process and also a
misconduct.Mohd.Khalidv.StateofWstBangal,2002(4)Crimes160(SC).
13. ProfessionalMisconductRunningofSTD/Photocopierinthenameofadvocate.License
cancelledfor5year.BhupinderKumarSharmav.BarAss.Pathankot,Jt2001(9)(SC)
480:AIR2002SC41.
14. Third person an on advocate can represent a party without being general power of
attorneyofthepartywiththepriorpermissionoftheCourtwhichhastobeobtainedby
thepartyandnotbythethirdperson.Mathaiv.PrincipalDistt.&SessionsJudge,1999
(2)RCR(Cri.)1Kerala1999(2)RCR(Cri.)373(SC).
15. Merelyownershipoftaxiinhisnameofanadvocateisnotsufficientwithouthispersonal
engagementinbusiness.P.K.Sharmav.GurdialSingh,AIR1999SC98.
16. Supreme Court Rules for the allotment of the chambers of the advocates, Vinay
BalchandraJoshiv.RegistrarGeneral,supremeCourtofIndia,AIR1999SC107.
17. The disciplinary committee cannot dealt with the matter of an Advocate who was
treasurerofsomesocietyandtheallegationwasofnoaccounting.Bapuraokhiddeyv.
Sumandoudey,JT1999(1)(SC)273:AIR1999SC916.
18. AdvocatesActwillnotbeapplicableonanadvocateduringtheperiodofthesuspension
of his licence . Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR
1999SC902
19. The accused who is an advocate can represent his coaccused in the capacity of the
advocateinacriminalcasetillthelicenceoftheaccusedadvocateisinexistence2(1997)
CCR536:AIR1980Orissa143.
20. ActiontakenbythedisciplinarycommitteeoftheBarCouncilofIndiaistobechallenged
inSupremecourtU/S.38oftheAdvocateActandorder5oftheSupremeCourtrules,
1966.1997(2)supreme294.
21. Identificationofapersonbyanadvocateofapersoningoodfaithwithoutanypersonal
benefit is no offence under the Indian Penal code . Mensrea is a must. Balbir Singh v.
StateofPunjab,1994(3)RCR486(P&H):1994CCCase231:1994(2)CCI749:1995
(1)CCCase97HC.BalbirSinghv.StateofPunjab,1984cri.L.J.421.

17Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE
22. Feeschargedbytheadvocatebutsuitnotfield.Itamountstomisappropriationofamount.
D.S.Dalalv.StateBankofIndia,1993(2)RRR116:AIR1993SC1608.
23. MisconductAppearanceofanothercounselinthecasewithoutobtainingthepermission
ofthecounselalreadyengagedbytheclient.itismisconductonthepartortheadvocate
appearingafresh.GiriRajParshadSharmav.RajasthanUni.1987civilCourtCases37.
24. ContemptOfCourtAsMisconduct
B.M.Vermav.UttrakhandRegulatoryCommission[8]courtnotedthat,itwasgiven
thewidepowersavailablewithaCourtexercisingcontemptjurisdiction,courtquoted
severalheDelhiHC,
CourtofItsOwnMotionv.State[9],giventhewidepowersavailablewithaCourt
exercisingcontemptjurisdiction,itcannotaffordtobehypersensitiveandtherefore,a
trivialmisdemeanorwouldnotwarrantcontemptaction.
SCBarAssociationv.UnionofIndia[10]Circumspectionisallthemorenecessary,
theCourtisineffectthejury,thejudgeandthehangman
M.R.ParasharH.L.SehgalitwasobservedthattheCourtisalsoaprosecutor.
25. AttemptOfMurderHikmatAlikhanv.Ishwarprasadaryaandors[11],Attemptingto
commitmurderpunishableunderSection307,IPC.Thegravityofthemisconduct
committedshowsthatheisunworthyofremainingintheprofession.Themisconduct,
calledfortheimpositionofthepunishmentofremovalofthenameofrespondentfrom
theStaterollunderSection35oftheAdvocateAct.
26. MisbehaviourAsMisconductVinaychandramishra,inre[10]factssenioradvocate
shout&insultthejudgeSohewassentencedtosimpleimprisonmentforaperiodofsix
weeksandheshallstandsuspendedfrompractisingasanadvocateforaperiodofthree
years.
27. StrikeAsMisconductExcapt.HarishuppalV.UnionofIndia[11]Whetherthe
lawyershavearighttostrike?CourtcannotpenaliseanyAdvocateforthismisconductas
thepowertodisciplineisnowexclusivelywiththeBarCouncils.
28. SolicitationOfProfessionalWorkRajendraV.PaiVs.AlexFernandesandOrs.[12]
Theappellantshouldnothaveindulgedintoprosecutingordefendingalitigationin
whichhehadapersonalinterestinviewofhisfamilypropertybeinginvolved.
29. BreachOfTrustByMisappropriatingTheAssetOfClientHarishChandraTiwariv.
Baiju[13]Courtheldthatamongthedifferenttypesofmisconductenvisagedforalegal
practitionermisappropriationoftheclientsmoneymustberegardedasoneofthe
gravest.
[8]AppealNo.156of2007
[9]151(2008)DLT695(Del.,DB)
[10](1998)4SCC409
[11][1997]RDSC87
[12]AIR2002SC1808
[13]2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
18Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

30. InformingAboutBribe:MisconductShambhuRamYadavv.HanumanDas
Khatry,[14]Nameshouldbestruckofffrom,therollofadvocatesmaintainedbytheBar
CouncilofRajasthan.CourtimposeacostofRs.5,000/.

[14](2001)6SCC1.165

19Createdby:AnchitKhokher

UNITYLAWCOLLEGE

BIBLOGRAPHY
PrassadAnirudh,PrinciplesoftheethicsoflegalprofessioninIndia:
accountancyforlawyersandbenchbarrelationsincludingcontemptof
court,JaipurUniversityBookHouse,2004.
Rai.K.,Historyofcourts,legislature&legalprofessioninIndia,
Faridabad:AllahabadLawAgency,1985.
www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
www.indiankanoon.org/cached/1959104
www.legalserviceindia.com
www.manupatrainternational.in
AIR1979SC14:SCR931
www.jurisonline.in/2010/04/professionalmisconduct
2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
AppealNo.156of2007
151(2008)DLT695(Del.,DB)
(1998)4SCC409
[1997]RDSC87
AIR2002SC1808
2002SCC(Cri,)294(SC):AIR2002SC548
(2001)6SCC1.165

20Createdby:AnchitKhokher

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi