UNITY LAW COLLEGECONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CASES««««««««««««««««««.««.01 INTRODUCTION«««««««««««««««««...............03 WHAT IS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT?...................................04 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE««««««««««««««.«.07 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT«««««««««««««.««08 LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED««««««««««««.«11 CONCLUSION«««««««««««««««««««««....13 LEADING CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN INDIA««««««««««...«««««.«.15 BIBILOGRAPHY««««««««««««««««««...........19 1 Created by: Anchit Khokher UNITY LAW COLLEGE TABLE OF CASES Cases«««««««««««««««««««.«...«Page No 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. «««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««... 5 1 U.O.I. v. Gulshan Bajwa, JT 2003(8) (SC) 440«««««««««««««««««««««««. 5 1 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«««««««««««««««««««««««.. 6 1 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 916««««««««««16 Baldev Singh Dhingra v. madan Lal gupta, 1999 SCC (Cri,) 317: AIR 1999 SC 902««««««««.16 2 Created by: Anchit Khokher ....UNITY LAW COLLEGE Balbir Singh v............. State.....1 7 Harish Chandra Tiwari v.... Alex Fernandes and Ors.................... ........... Verma v...........................................1 7 Court of Its Own Motion v.... in re.1 7 Shambhu Ram Yadav v.............................. 1993 (2) RRR 116: AIR 1993 SC 1608««««««««««««................................................................................... State Bank of India....................... Hanuman Das Khatry...... 421«««««««««««««««««««««««1 6 D..............................................1 7 Hikmat Ali khan v..................................1 7 SC Bar Association v.......................1 7 Rajendra V............................. ...................... Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission...............................18 3 Created by: Anchit Khokher .................. M............... Union of India............. L...1 7 Ex-capt.................................. Union of India...................... Baiju...................................................................................State of Punjab........................................S................................ Dalal v.............. Pai Vs..........................................................................1 7 Vinay chandra mishra..... 1984 cri..... Ishwar prasad arya and ors....... 1987 civil Court Cases 37««««««««««««««17 B.............16 Giri Raj Parshad Sharma v...................... Rajasthan Uni................................J....................... Harish uppal V.................... JJ. In the present case the appellant had been held guilty of serious Professional Misconduct by the Bar Council of india upon an enquiry through its Disciplinary Committee. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the members of the profession conduct themselves.UNITY LAW COLLEGE INTRODUCTION An advocate is the most accountable. The case came up to the Supreme Court as an appeal U/S. but they have to strive to secure justice to their clients. on appeal. He was held guilty of misconduct under the Advocates Act. 1961. Thus the case illustrated a fine point where the judiciary upheld the spirit of law and the dignity of the Legal profession. [1] Generally the legal profession is not a trade or business. The Supreme Court. It¶s a symbol of healthy relationship between Bar and Bench.jurisonline. the noble. and decontaminated profession of the society. [1] www. which are necessary to be regulated. The instant case is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India regarding ³Professional Misconduct´ as envisaged under Section 35 of The Advocates Act. Professional misconduct refers to disgraceful or dishonourable conduct not befitting an advocate. privileged and erudite person of the society and his act are role model for the society.38 of the Advocates Act.in/2010/04/µprofessional -misconduct¶ 4 Created by: Anchit Khokher . 1961 and punished with reprimand. Agrawal and G. Pattanaik. This case was cited in later cases as a precedent where the issue of misappropriation or wrongful retention of the client¶s money was involved in cases of alleged misconduct by the advocates. 1961 before a bench comprising of S. Professional misconduct is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable or worthy of its membership by the governing body of a profession. Members belonging to this profession have not to encourage deceitfulness and corruption. violated the trust placed upon him and committed a breach of his duty as an advocate. There is heavy responsibility on those on whom duties¶ are vested by the virtue of being a part of my most credible as plausible profession of the society. examined the same and came to a conclusion that the appellant had indeed.B. it¶s a gracious.C. though under Advocate Act. Pleader who accepts any employment or legal business through a person who has been proclaimed as a tout under section 36 6. 1961 to take disciplinary action punishment are prescribed when the credibility and reputation on the profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission and commission any member of the profession. Pleader who takes instructions in any case except from the party on whom behalf he is retained or some person who is the recognized agent of such party or some servant or relative or friend authorized by the party to give such instructions 2. ³professional or other misconducts´ under Section 35 of Advocates act. 5 Created by: Anchit Khokher .UNITY LAW COLLEGE WHAT IS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT? Misconduct: it is a sufficiently wide expression: it is not necessary that it should involve moral turpitude. 3. The Advocates Act. It cannot be said that an advocate can never be punished for professional misconduct committed by him in his personal capacity. 1961 as well Indian Bar Council are silent in providing exact definition for profession misconduct because of its scope. Any conduct which in any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his profession or is likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice maybe considered to be misconduct calling for disciplinary action. Pleader who tenders or gives consents to the retention out of any fee or payable to him for his services of any gratification for procuring or having procured the employment in any legal business of himself or any other pleader 4. 1961 is misconduct in professional or other capacity. Pleader who is guilty of any other reasonable cause. The general meaning of the words. Pleader who directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure the employment of 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 promised to be so given 5. This concept has evolved from Section 13 of Legal Practitioners Act. 1879 which had classified misconduct of a lawyer as follows: 1. Pleader who is guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties. direct that the proceedings be filed. 1961 deals with the ³Conduct of Advocates´. Sec 35 deals with provisions pertaining to Punishment to an Advocate in a case of Professional misconduct. AIR 1976 SC 242. where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council. either of its own motion or on application made to it by any person interested to withdraw a preceding pending before its disciplinary committee and direct the enquiry to be made by any other disciplinary committee of state bar council sec 35(2) provides that disciplinary committee of state bar council shall fix the date for hearing of the case. Sub ± sec 3 of sec 35 provides that disciplinary committee of state bar council after giving the advocate concerned and Advocate ± General an opportunity of being heard.V. N. Sub-section 1 of Section 35 provides for that where upon receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconducts. may make any of the following orders.UNITY LAW COLLEGE Chapter V of the Advocates Act. Dolholkar. and shall cause a notice hereof to be given to the advocate concerned and Advocate . (d) Remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates. the Advocate-General may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf. Sub sec 5 of sec 35 lays down that 5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under subsection (2). the bar council is required to apply its mind to find out whether there is any reason to believe that any advocate has been guilty of 6 Created by: Anchit Khokher . Sub sec 4 of sec 35 lays down that Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause(c) of subsection (3) he shall. According to Sub-section 1A of Section 35. (b) Reprimand the advocate. during the period of suspension. the State Bar Council may. be debarred from practicing in any court or before any authority or person in India.General of the state. namely:(a) Dismiss the complaint or. (c) Suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deemed fit. In Bar Council of Maharashtra V. it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee. the Supreme Court has held that ± ´on receipt of complaint. µ[4] [2] www. Similarly. Any conduct wi thin any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his professional or is likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice by superior court or any of the other courts subordinate thereto.in 7 Created by: Anchit Khokher . may be considered to be misconduct calling for the dis ciplinary action. Kumaravelu v.legalserviceindia. AIR 1997 SC 1014. would amount to professional misconduct. Bar Council of India. But the negligence without moral turpitude or delinquency may not amount to professional misconduct.com [4] www. it has not been done. it has been held by Bombay High Court that ± ´the term ´misconductµ is a sufficiently wide expression. a conduct which amounts to dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client or towards his case.µ[2] In Re Tulsidas Amanmal.org/cached/1959104 [3] www.indiankanoon. It is not necessary that it should involve moral turpitude. In this has.manupatrainternational.that ± ³gross negligence in the discharge of duties partakes the shades of delinquency and would undoubtedly amount to professional misconduct.P.µ[3] The Supreme Court has held in V.UNITY LAW COLLEGE professional or other misconduct. AIR 1941 Bombay 228. hence the proceeding before the disciplinary committee. 1961. Atma Ram Nanak Chand wherein he made a number of allegations against the appellant. therefore. 3. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India. Shri Ram Contractor in the Court of Civil Judge. found the appellant guilty of gross professional misconduct on the basis of its findings.P. 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. Ghaziabad. 6. the U. 8 Created by: Anchit Khokher . 7. who was an advocate practicing at Ghaziabad. 5. The Disciplinary Committee has. The case came up as an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 38 of the Advocates Act. The State Bar Council thereupon referred the case to one of its Disciplinary Committees but the said Committee could not complete the proceedings in the prescribed time of one year and.UNITY LAW COLLEGE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. It was filed by the appellant ± Prahlad Saran Gupta. 1961 before the Supreme Court. 8. The appellant was appearing for the decree holder in the case of M/s. 2. Atma Ram Nanak Chand v. a partner of the firm M/s. Thereafter. The Disciplinary Committee had found the appellant guilty of serious professional misconduct and had imposed the punishment of suspension from practice for one year. however. State Bar Council received a complaint from Rajendra Prasad. 4. The appellant filed a reply to the State Bar Council and denied all such allegations. Thus the present appeal was filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act. Mehrotra. Furthermore. and more importantly. the Disciplinary Committee was in error in holding. Such rejection of the request was done by the Disciplinary Committee citing the reason that no useful purpose would be served because the allegation relating to the said document was not contained originally in the complaint. The Court ruled that ´Thus. through its own comparison. 1. Thus. professional or otherwise. 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 one in the Notice. the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Disciplinary Committee had erred in its finding. It was alleged that since the appellant was himself a standing counsel for the Railways. the request of the appellant for examination of the handwriting in the draft of the notice by an expert to show that the said draft of the notice was not in the handwriting of the appellant was rejected by the Disciplinary Committee. 2. 5. on the basis of a comparison by itself of the admitted handwriting of the appellant with the handwriting in. that the same was written by the appellant. having rejected the request for sending the said document to a handwriting expert for examination on the view that the said allegation was not contained in the complaint as originally filed. He challenged the Disciplinary Committee¶s findings on various counts. 3. Shri R.P. the Disciplinary Committee was in error in going into the merits of the said allegation and furthermore in comparing the writing in the said document with the handwriting of the 9 Created by: Anchit Khokher .UNITY LAW COLLEGE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant denied having committed any Misconduct. he shouldn¶t have drafted a notice against the same.C.B. having been drafted by the appellant. the Disciplinary Committee rejected the request and arrived at such conclusion on its own. Disciplinary Committee had held the appellant guilty of professional misconduct on the basis of the charge relating to notice under Section 80 C. The appellant submitted that the said charge was not contained in the complaint filed by the complainant and was put forward for the first time before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council by the complainant in his application. 4. 8. in which the appellant was engaged on behalf of the Decree holder.K. not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other. Gupta. Atma Ram Nanak Chand (decree holder). Pali Ram. 10. required proof beyond reasonable doubt. ruled against the finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the appellant was guilty of serious professional misconduct due to him having prepared the draft Notice U/S. 944]µ 7. this offence was of quasi-criminal nature and hence. hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet -anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence solely on comparison made by himself. 9. Gupta. and that the appellant refused to pay the said money [5] AIR 1979 SC 14: SCR 931 10 Created by: Anchit Khokher .K. as a matter of prudence and caution. which was served to the Railways. which were due to the decree holder. and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. he should. Shri Nanak Chand.µ 6.C. 1979(1) SCR 931[5]. therefore. It is. wherein it was held by the Hon¶ble Supreme Court that ± ´although there is no legal bar on the examination of handwriting by a judge.with himself. which could only have been established through the aid of an expert in order to compare the handwriting. The court also made a reference to the judgment in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. namely. The appellant wrongfully retained Rs. Advocate. The appellant claimed that that the said sum was placed with him by both the parties.UNITY LAW COLLEGE appellant without the assistance of the opinion of a handwriting expert and in coming to the conclusion that the said docume nt was in the handwriting of the appellant.P. The Court further rejected the bar Council¶s finding that the appellant was guilty of misconduct with regard to the letter sent to Shri V. at Allahabad) to Shri Ram for the purpose of his obtaining stay of execution proceedings from the Allahabad High Court. partner of firm M/s. and Shri Ram (judgment debtor) in connection with a settlement which was being negotiated between them.500/. The court stated that. 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. 80 C.''[P. The court therefore. 1. The court held that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of Shri Ram that the appellant had handed over that letter (addressed to Shri V. 11. 1978 when he deposited it in the court. 1. This was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Court further ordered a punishment of reprimand to be imposed on the appellant for the said misconduct on his part. 14. 12. the amount was returned only on May 2. The Court further observed that the order sheet of the execution case shows that the proceedings had terminated on April 4. Even when such proposed settlement did not fructify.UNITY LAW COLLEGE to the decree holder. 11 Created by: Anchit Khokher . The Court held that this was not in consonance with the standards of professional ethics expected from a senior member of the profession and amounted to Professional Misconduct for his having wrongfully retained Rs. the appellant did not return the amount of Rs. 1978. whereas.which had been kept with him in connection with the settlement in the execution proceedings. 1. for the reason that it could be paid only if a joint receipt of both the parties was handed over to him.500/.500/.either to the decree holder or to the judgment debtor and continued to retain the same with him till he deposited it in the court on May 2. 1978. 13. it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. either of its own motion or on application made to it by any person interested.] (2) The disciplinary committee of a State Council shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate General of the State. (b) Reprimand the advocate. [(1A) The State Bar Council may. may make any of the following orders.(a) Dismiss the complaint or. withdraw a proceeding pending before its disciplinary committee mid direct the inquiry to be made by any other disciplinary committee of that State Bar Council. 1961 CHAPTER V : SEC 35 PUNISHMENT OF ADVOCATES FOR MISCONDUCT (1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct. (5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under subsection (2). direct that the proceedings be filed. (3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard. namely: . (c) Suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deemed fit. be debarred from practicing in any court or before any authority or person in India. where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council. (d) Remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates. 12 Created by: Anchit Khokher .UNITY LAW COLLEGE LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED THE ADVOCATES ACT. the Advocate-General may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf. (4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause(c) of subsection (3) he shall. during the period of suspension. by Act No. 107 of 1976 2. in relation to the Union territory of Delhi. Ins. Ins. Omitted by Act No. 21 of 1964. CHAPTER V : SEC 38 APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT Any person aggrieved by an order made by' the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36 or Section 37 1[or the Attorney-General of India or the AdvocateGeneral of the State concerned as the case may be]. prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may pass such order 1[including an order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India] thereon as it deems fit: 1 [Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him. 13 Created by: Anchit Khokher . mean the Additional Solicitor General of India].] 1. 60 of 1973. -In this section 1[Section 37 and Section 38] the expression Advocate General' and 'Advocate-General of the State' shall. 1.UNITY LAW COLLEGE 2 [Explanation. by Act no. he was at the same time. A lawyer. being wrongfully withholding the decree holder¶s money. While the appellant was exonerated on other counts mentioned in the complaint regarding his alleged misconduct. In the instant case. In this [6] www. a duty to the court. He was found to have been guilty of the same as he wrongfully withheld and retained the amounts due to the Decree holder with himself and delayed paying it in spite of demands. They being part of the system of delivering justice. the Court ordered that the penalty of reprimand be imposed upon him. design or fraud. the court held that ´among the different types of misconduct envisaged for a legal practitioner. the Supreme Court has viewed such retention of the client¶s money to be the gravest form of misconduct. misappropriation of the client·s money must be regarded as one of the gravest. Baiju [7]. While discharging duty to the court. Each individual has a well defined code of conduct which needs to be followed by the person living in the society. he breached his position of trust which the client had placed on him. It needs a high degree of probity and poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous stand. Therefore the appeal was partly allowed.) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548 14 Created by: Anchit Khokher . a duty to the society at large and a duty to himself [6]. Even in later cases.in/2010/04/µprofessional-misconduct¶ [7] 2002 SCC (Cri. hold great reverence and respect in the society. more so. held guilty on just one of them.UNITY LAW COLLEGE CONCLUSION The role of the lawyers in the society is of great importance. the Hon¶ble Supreme Court of India examined in detail the charges of ³professional misconduct´ levelled against the appellant. in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client. While placing the law before the court a lawyer is at liberty to put forth a proposition and canvass the same to the best of his wits and ability so as to persuade an exposition which would serve the interest of his client and the society.jurisonline. a lawyer should never knowingly be a party to any deception. a duty to his opponent. Thus. In the case of Harish Chandra Tiwari v. This form of conduct is not worthy of an advocate and hence. when there are conflicting claims. when the money of the client reaches his hand it is a trust. There may be justification to award a lesser punishment in a case where the delinquent advocate returned the money before commencing the disciplinary proceedings. But if an advocate misappropriates money of the client there is no justification in de-escalating the gravity of the misdemeanour. Although the entry to the profession can be had acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence. or withdraw money from the court payable to the client or take money of the client to be deposited in court. If a publ ic servant misappropriates money he is liable to be punished under the present Prevention of Corruption Act. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honorable members. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation.µ Thus the strictest measures need to be undertaken to prevent and punish such instances from taking place and breaching the healthy atmosphere required by the legal system to flourish smoothly with mutual trust.UNITY LAW COLLEGE professional capacity the legal practitioner has to collect money from the client towards expenses of the litigation. 15 Created by: Anchit Khokher . with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year. Perhaps the dimension of the gravity of such breach of trust would be mitigated when the misappropriation remained only for a temporary period. In all such cases. He is certain to be dismissed from service. the honor as a professional has to be maintained by its members. by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. Review ± Order already passed by the Bar Council can be reviewed even after 60 days.) 40 Delhi. Licence cancelled is restored .) & Ors. For withdrawal notice to the client be given. 2003 Cri.Sridher & Anr.J.O. L.P. National Capital Territory of Delhi Govt. (Regd. Advocate Generals of its choice. M.C-Memo of appearance is sufficient in criminal case. 195 Cr. Khan v.C . 820. 9.P. rather it is executive. False affidavit by deponent client regarding the age. Satish Kumar Ranchhoddas Patel. 16 Created by: Anchit Khokher .P. matter referred to the Bar Counsel of India for necessary action. U. 20003 (2) RCR (Cri. v Kurapati Satyanarayana. v. Ajay Mehta v. Govt.I. 3984 Guj. State of Karnataka.) 155: AIR 2003 SC 175. State Bar council has quasi judicial power and it also perform the role of the prosecutor and hence. This appointment is not constitutional. Non ± appearance of the counsel in the case is professional misconduct.N.L. is competent to file appeal being aggrieved person against the judgment of the Bar council of India. 2004(2) RCR (Cri. K. Natrajan v. S. rather it is an officer of the court and legal profession is not a trade or business rather it is a noble profession and advocates have to strive to secure justice for their clients within legally permissible limits. B. Sharma Advocate v. of A. Allegations by the advocate against the Judges in Review petition after dismissal of SLP. The advocate has no responsibility. 6. New Delhi Bar Ass. State of A. Duty of advocate ± One should not refer a judgment already overruled and that there is no other judgment by larger bench. of Delhi. P. v. v. state of Haryana .J. Raghu Bhai Surabhai Bhawad v. 2003 (3) RCR (Cri) 166 (P&H). 8. Bar Council of A. Subba Rao. Gulshan Bajwa. P. 5. Advocates Act ± State can appoint more than one addl. Vakalatname is not necessary like the civil case.T. An advocate is an officer of the Court and legal profession is not a trade or business. 2003 SCC (Cri. 3. N. G.. 2005(2) RCR(Cri. JT 2004(1) (SC) 146 : AIR 2004 SC 2934 4. B 7. 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 429(Karnataka).) 116 A. JT 2003(8) (SC) 440. 303 Cr. JT 2003 (4) (SC) 435. Referring wrong arguments or Changing stand at different stages of proceedings is no offence covering the application of s.UNITY LAW COLLEGE LEADING CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN INDIA 1. R. 2. ) 424 (SC): AIR 2003 SC 541: 2003 Cri. P. 1999 SCC (Cri. 15. Suman doudey.2002 (4) Crimes 160 (SC). Supreme Court Rules for the allotment of the chambers of the advocates. Balbir Singh v. License cancelled for 5 year.) 1 Kerala 1999 (2) RCR (Cri. 38 of the Advocate Act and order 5 of the Supreme Court rules. C. 11. Mensrea is a must.) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548. Mathai v. Balbir Singh v. 14. Merely ownership of taxi in his name of an advocate is not sufficient without his personal engagement in business. 1984 cri. & Sessions Judge. Bapurao khiddey v. Baldev Singh Dhingra v. MCS. supreme Court of India. Licence cancelled permanently.) 696 (Karnataka). 2002 (3) RCR (Cri. 1966. Advocate cannot argue his own case as an advocate but he can argue his case while appearing in person as general public. 1997 (2) supreme 294. 20. Advocates Act will not be applicable on an advocate during the period of the suspension of his licence . Professional Misconduct-Running of STD/Photocopier in the name of advocate. The disciplinary committee cannot dealt with the matter of an Advocate who was treasurer of some society and the allegation was of no-accounting . Gurdial Singh. Baiju. 2002 SCC (Cri. Bar Ass. madan Lal gupta.B. Pathankot. State of Wst Bangal . Rs.J.UNITY LAW COLLEGE 10. State of Punjab. Jt 2001 (9) (SC) 480: AIR 2002 SC 41. Advocates Act. Third person an on advocate can represent a party without being general power of attorney of the party with the prior permission of the Court which has to be obtained by the party and not by the third person. 19.) 317: AIR 1999 SC 902. Registrar General .Undue adjournments of the case is an abuse of the process and also a misconduct.State of Punjab. Khalid v . 16.Barna v. Vinay Balchandra Joshi v. 17 Created by: Anchit Khokher . Identification of a person by an advocate of a person in good faith without any personal benefit is no offence under the Indian Penal code .K. Then produced forged documents to establish that he has paid the amount. 1999 (2) RCR (Cri. 17. P. Principal Distt. AIR 1999 SC 98. Mohd. 13. Ramanurthy. 12. 421. Sharma v. Harish Chander Tiwari v.) 373 (SC). The accused who is an advocate can represent his co -accused in the capacity of the advocate in a criminal case till the licence of the accused advocate is in existence 2(1997) CCR 536 : AIR 1980 Orissa 143. 8118 received by the counsel on behalf of his client and kept with him. Bhupinder Kumar Sharma v. 1994 (3) RCR 486 (P&H): 1994 CC Case 231: 1994 (2) CCI 749: 1995 (1) CC Case 97 HC. 18. L. Action taken by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India is to be challenged in Supreme court U/S. AIR 1999 SC 107. JT 1999 (1) (SC) 273 : AIR 1999 SC 916. 21. Solicitation Of Professional Work -.IPC. Contempt Of Court As Misconduct B. Attempt Of Murder -. it cannot afford to be hypersensitive and therefore.Vinay chandra mishra. 23. Breach Of Trust By Misappropriating The Asset Of Client -. Baiju [13]. the judge and the hangman. Union of India[10] Circumspection is all the more necessary. it is misconduct on the part or the advocate appearing afresh. 1987 civil Court Cases 37. 24. µgiven the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction. SC Bar Association v. 1993 (2) RRR 116: AIR 1993 SC 1608. Misbehaviour As Misconduct -. L. Giri Raj Parshad Sharma v. 26.R. Misconduct ± Appearance of another counsel in the case without obtaining the permission of the counsel already engaged by the client . The gravity of the mis-conduct committed shows that he is unworthy of remaining in the profession. 156 of 2007 151 (2008) DLT 695 (Del. Pai Vs.Rajendra V. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission[8] court noted that.. 25. The mis-conduct.Hikmat Ali khan v. Attempting to commit murder punishable under Section 307. court quoted several he Delhi HC. the Court is in effect the jury.Whether the lawyers have a right to strike? Court cannot penalise any Advocate for this misconduct as the power to discipline is now exclusively with the Bar Councils. State [9]. Union of India[11] -. D. Harish uppal V.Harish Chandra Tiwari v. M.[12] The appellant should not have indulged into prosecuting or defending a litigation in which he had a personal interest in view of his family property being involved. Fees charged by the advocate but suit not field . 28. Sehgal it was observed that the Court is also a prosecutor. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Appeal No.S. Alex Fernandes and Ors. State Bank of India. Court held that among the different types of misconduct envisaged for a legal practitioner misappropriation of the client¶s money must be regarded as one of the gravest. Parashar H. Ishwar prasad arya and ors[11].UNITY LAW COLLEGE 22. a trivial misdemeanor would not warrant contempt action. 29. Rajasthan Uni.Ex-capt. Dalal v. Strike As Misconduct -.It amounts to misappropriation of amount. M. senior advocate shout & insult the judge So he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks and he shall stand suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548 18 Created by: Anchit Khokher . it was given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt jurisdiction. 27. DB) (1998) 4 SCC 409 [1997] RD-SC 87 AIR 2002 SC 1808 2002 SCC (Cri. called for the imposition of the punishment of removal of the name of respondent from the State roll under Section 35 of the Advocate Act. in re [10] facts. Court of Its Own Motion v. Verma v. 5..Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Court impose a cost of Rs.[14] Name should be struck off from. Hanuman Das Khatry.000/. Informing About Bribe : Misconduct -.UNITY LAW COLLEGE 30. the roll of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. [14] (2001) 6 SCC 1. 165 19 Created by: Anchit Khokher . com www. Faridabad : Allahabad Law Agency. Rai.in AIR 1979 SC 14: SCR 931 www.jurisonline. www.jurisonline.) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548 Appeal No..UNITY LAW COLLEGE BIBLOGRAPHY Prassad Anirudh.manupatrainternational. 165 20 Created by: Anchit Khokher . Principles of the ethics of legal profession in India : accountancy for lawyers and bench -bar relations including contempt of court.indiankanoon. 1985.) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548 (2001) 6 SCC 1. 2004.org/cached/1959104 www. legislature & legal profession in India. K. DB) (1998) 4 SCC 409 [1997] RD-SC 87 AIR 2002 SC 1808 2002 SCC (Cri.in/2010/04/µprofessional -misconduct¶ www.in/2010/04/µprofessional -misconduct¶ 2002 SCC (Cri. 156 of 2007 151 (2008) DLT 695 (Del.legalserviceindia.. Jaipur University Book House. History of courts.