SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002

Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.
2. Supreme Court of India
Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?
Supreme Court of India
Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant wasguilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the Distri ct Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigati on papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000
PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000
PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI
RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA
 Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993
PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Prade sh State Co-operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retaine r ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1 994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but clai med that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI
RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV
 Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH
RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal
Supreme Court of India
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT:

SUPREME COURT CASE (1)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs Baiju on 8 January, 2002
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 200 of 2000

PETITIONER:
HARISH CHANDRA TIWARI

RESPONDENT:
BAIJU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2002

BENCH:
K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN

JUDGMENT:

act -
Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982,
and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case
in which the respondent was claimant for compensation. Compensation of RS. 8118 /- for acquisition of
Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing
the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it
to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the
Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable
disciplinary action against Appellant
On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of
the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount
to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an
affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and
respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the
affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having
received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The
disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August,
1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated. On this findings the committee imposed a
punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act
,1961.

Issue -
What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ?

Judgement -
The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of
appellant from the roll of the advocate.

2. Supreme Court of India

Shambhu Ram Yadav vs Hanum Das Khatry on 26 July, 2001
Author: Y.K.Sabharwal
Bench: K.T. Thomas, Y.K. Sabharwal
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6768 of 2000

PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU RAM YADAV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HANUM DAS KHATRY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/07/2001

BENCH:
K.T. Thomas & Y.K. Sabharwal

Supreme Court of India

R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
Author: Thomas
Bench: K.T.Thomas
PETITIONER:
R.D. SAXENA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/2000

BENCH:
K.T.Thomas

.D. Saxena
v
. Balram Prasad Sharma
AIR 2000 SC 3049
FACTS
1.
That the Appellant was a practicing advocate in the
c o u r t s a t B h o p a l , e n r o l l e d a s a l e g a l practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh.2.That, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co -operative
Bank Ltdin 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that capacity during the succeeding years.
Hewas also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in which the Bank was a party.3.That, on
17.7.1993 the Bank terminated the retainer ship of the appellant and requested himto return
all the case files relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a
consolidated bill to the Bank showing an amount of Rs. 97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank
towards the legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed theBank that the files would
be returned only after settling his dues.4.That a complaint was hence filed by the Managing
Director of the Bank, before the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was
alleged in the complaint that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the
files to his client.5.That, in the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he
admitted that thefiles were not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files
by exercising hisright of lien and offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.6.That
the complaint was forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar
Council.After one year, under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, the proceedings stood transferred
tot h e B a r C o u n c i l o f I n d i a . A f t e r h o l d i n g i n q u i r y t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y C o m m i t t e e o f
t h e B a r Council of India reached the conclusion that appellant was guilty of professional
misconduct.7.Hence, the present appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
ISSUE

Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by
hisclient?

Supreme Court of India

Sardul Singh vs Pritam Singh And Ors on 18 March, 1999
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. M1Sra
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1763 of 1993

PETITIONER:
SARDUL SINGH

RESPONDENT:
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1999

BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO & A.P. M1SRA

JUDGMENT: