THEDI SCIPLINARYCOMMI TTEEOF

THEBARCOUNCI LOFI NDIA

B.C.I
.Tr.CaseNO.56/ 2012
с.
Compl ainant
Versus
R.
Respondent
Present:
ShriB.S.Rat hore,Chair
man
ShriI.N.Meht a,Member
ShriAshishDeshmukh, Member
TheAdvocatesAct ,1961( ActNo.of1961),Sect
ion35-
ProfessionalMi sconduct

Fact
soft
hecase:

● ThepresentAppealwasr efer
redtotheBarCounci lofIndi
abyJust ice,HighCour t
ofDelhithatthecompl ainantisar esidentofFar i
dabad and practi
sing asan
advocat
einDel hiHighCour tinTri
alCour tandshehadgotmar r
iedi nFebr uar
y
1995.Asar esultofmut ualconsentdivorce,apermanentalimonyamount ingto
2,
58,498wasfixedbythecour ti
nfavourofthecomplainant
.

● One fal
se complai
ntwas gotfil
ed by t
he r
espondentadvocat
ethrough t
he
Presi
dentFari
dabadBarAssoci
ati
onagainstt
hecompl ai
nantinBarCounci
lof
Delhi
.

● Acompl aintwasmadeagainsttheSHO,Fari
dabadinwhosedefencerespondent
s
appeared.Thecomplai
nantall
egedthatwher
erespondentandoneotheradvocat
e
misbehavedwithheratherseati
ntheFari
dabadCourtcompound.

● Onthebasisofaf
oresai
dal
legat
ions,
complai
nantsoughtt
he
i
ndulgenceofsheSt at
eBarCounci lofPunj
abandHar yanat
otakenecessar
y
act
ion..

● The respondent
sf i
led t
he r
epl
ies t
hatno speci f
ic al
legat
ions wer
el evel
led
misconductandcompl ai
ntar
eabsolutel
yf al
se,imagi
nar yandvexati
ous. The
chargeofmolest
ati
onbytheSHOisconcoctedstor
y.

● ORDERDATED:THE20THOFJANUARY, 2012
Thepresentcompl
ainthasbeenref
err
edt otheBarCounci
lofI
ndi
adated31-03-
2009passedbyJust
iceDr.S.Mur
li
dhar,
Hi ghCour
tofDel
hii
nCrl
.M.A.2849/
2009.
 Justi
ceDr.S.Murl
idharwaspleasedt
odir
ecttheBarCounci
lofDel
hiaswellasthe
BarCounciloft
hesaidcomplainttot
heBarCouncilofPunj
ab&Har yanaandtake
acti
oni naccor
dancewi t
hActandRul est her
eunderasagainsttheadvocates
enrol
ledundert
heBarCouncilofPunj
abandHaryana.

I
ssuesf
ramed:

● Onthebasi
softhepleadingsofthepart
iesthefoll
owingissueswerefr
amed:
1.Whet
hertherespondentshavecommi tt
edprofessi
onalmisconduct
2.Whet
herthecomplaintismaint
ainabl
eornotint hepr
esentform?

Fi
ndi
ngsoft
heDC

● Thear gumentsadvancedbyt heparti

eswer eheardatlength.Thecompl ai
nant
argued thattherespondents arel i
ableto bepunished forhavi
ng commi t
ted
professi
onalmisconductoranyothermisconductasenvi
sagedunderSecti
on35of
theAdvocatesAct,1961.

● Afterhearing boththe parti

es atlengththe Committee has reached on t
he
conclusi
on thatt her
ei s suff
ici
entforce i
nthe argument s advanced by t
he
respondents and the presentcompl ai
ntseems t o have been f i
led by t
he
compl ai
nantagainsttherespondent
ssoas t osett
leherper sonalscorewit
hthe
respondents.

● Theactoft hecompl ainantisherebyst r

onglycondemnedbyt hecommi tt
eeasi tis
af al
seandf r
ivolouscompl aint.
Or
derofBCIDC
● Afterhearingbot hthepar ti
esatl ength,t hecommi tt
eeisoft heconsideredview
that the compl ainant has mi serablyf ail
ed to prove her case agai nst t
he
respondents,becausesol it
arystatementoft hecompl ainantwhoi sbi asedand
int
erestedwi tnesscannotber eli
eduponwi t
houtanyindependentcorroboration.
● Itistheadmi tt
edcaseoft hecompl ainantthatrespondentsadvocateshavebeen
appearingonbehal fofopposi t
epar tyintheper sonalli
ti
gationofcompl ainantso
thecompl ainanti sbiasedagainstther espondents.

● Mor eover,thecri
mi nalcompl ai
nt ,defamation compl aintand crimi nalcont empt
peti
tion fil
ed bythecompl ainantar est il
lpendi ng adjudicati
on bef or
edi fferent
courts,hencet hemat terregar ding complaint
sf i
led byt hecompl ai
nantbei ng
subjudicecannotbecomment eduponbyt hiscommi t
tee.
● Mor eover,mer ependencyofanycompl ai
ntagai nstt her espondent sdoesnot
amountt oanyprofessi
onalmi sconduct .Thatallthedocument srel
ieduponbyt he
compl ainantareonl yphotocopi es.Itist heset tl
ed pr i
ncipl
eofl aw t hatmer e
exhibiti
onofadocumentdoesnotdi spensedi spensewi thi t
smodeofpr oof,as
requiredundertheevidenceact .I nvi
ewoft heaforesaiddiscussionsandt hel egal
 proposi
ti
oninvol
vedinthecase,t
hecommi t
teereachestot
heconcl
usi
ont
hatt
he
complai
nanthasmiserabl
yfai
ledt
oprovehercaseatall
.

● Thecommi t
teeisoft heviewthatthepresentcaseseemst ohavebeenfi
ledbyt
he
complainantwithanul ter
iormot i
vetohar assandhumi li
atetherespondent
sand
nothi
ng else,and as such t he respondents cannotbe held gui
ltyforhavi
ng
commi tt
edanyof fence.
●
● Withtheseobservtion,t
hecompl ai
ntisherebydismissedwiththe
costof20,000outofwhi chanamountof* 5,000shallbedeposit
ed
theAdvocatesWel fareFundandr emaini
ngof#15, 000shallbep
totherespondents.