50 Opinion - Advocate - Lawsuit PDF

Search   
82  13 RELATED TITLES
31K views
DownloadNow

50 Opinion
Uploaded by mks9211 on May 14, 2017
50 OPINIONS OF BAR COUNCIL OF

INDIA Full description
    Osmania Income Tax Study of Hohfeld

University LLB… Authorities in… Theory of Right…
Save Embed Share Print
Download Now 23 of 115  Search document 

KARNATAK LAW SOCIETY’S
RAJA LAKHAMGOUDA LAW COLLEGE

TILAKWADI, BELGAUM
50 SELECTED OPINIONS OF
THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES OF
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
G. M. WAGH
1998

This document is...
Scribd 
Books, audiobooks, and more.
 Useful  Not useful

Get our free app
Trusted by over 1 million members
to access over 125 million
Try Scribd FREE for 30 daysSearch 
titles without ads or interruptions! 
Start Free Trial

Download Now 
Cancel Anytime.

Try Scribd for Free
Read Free for 30 Days
CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT DECIDED BY

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING CASE

1. DC Appeal No. 16/1993 25(1) 1998 IBR 135 1
2. DC Appeal No. 8/1994 25(1) 1998 IBR 153 4
3. D.C. Appeal No. 20/1994 24(3&4) 1997 IBR193 7
4. BCI Transfer Case No. 76/1995 24(3&4) 1997 IBR 201 10

5. BCI Transfer Case No. 104/1990 23(1) 1996 IBR 155 12
8. DC Appeal No. 35/1987 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 536 18
9. DC Appeal No. 40/1986 14(3) 1987 IBR 488 21
10. DC Appeal No. 7/1981 14(4) 1987 IBR 735 23
11. DC Appeal No. 19/1993* 23(1) 1996 IBR 152 25
*
12. DC Appeal No. 24/1987 16(2) 1989 IBR 273 27

13. DC Appeal No. 3/1988* 16(2) 1989 IBR 285 30

This document is...
WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS
14. DC Appeal No 10/1986 & 10A/1986 14(3) 1987 IBR 491 32
15. DC Appeal No. 12/1986 14(4) 1987 IBR 745 34

FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTS, MISAPPROPRIATION OF CLIENT’S MONEY,  Useful  Not useful
BREACH OF TRUST, MISUSE OF CLIENT’S CONFIDENCE

Get our free app
16. DC Appeal No. 13/1991 24(1&2) 1997 IBR 271 36
17. DC Appeal No. 24/1990 23(1) 1996 IBR 135 38
18. DC Appeal No. 41/1987 16(1) 1989 IBR 122 40
19 DC Appeal No 21/1985 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 359 42
19. DC Appeal No. 21/1985 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 359 42
21. DC Appeal No. 28/1986 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 374 45
22.
23.
Search
DC Appeal No. 38/1984
DC Appeal No. 7/1986 
14(2) 1987 IBR 319
14(3) 1987 IBR 496
47
49  
MISLEADING CLIENT, CHEATING THE CLIENT, MAKING FALSE ASSURANCES

Download Now 27.

28.
15(1&2) 1988 IBR 187
14(4) 1987 IBR 757
60
62

29.
THREATENING CLIENT, BLACKMAILING THE CLIENT
BCI Transfer Case No. 29/1981 16(2) 1989 IBR 245 64

DISREGARD OF CLIENT’S INTEREST
30.
Try Scribd for Free
DC Appeal No. 33/1986 15(3&4) 1988 IBR 354 68

50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India 2
WITHDRAWAL FROM CASE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASON AND SUFFICIENT NOTICE
REPRESENTING THE OTHER SIDE, CHANGING OF SIDE, APPEARING FOR BOTH SIDES
35. DC Appeal No. 6/1981 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 193 78
36. DC Appeal No. 64/1974 14(2) 1987 IBR 314 79
MISGUIDING COURT
INTERFERING WITH THE DECISION BY INFLUENCING THE JUDGE

39. DC Appeal No. 46/1986 16(2) 1989 IBR 280 85
MAKING SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDING OFFICER

42. DC Appeal No. 41/1986 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 200 92
CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN ADVOCATE, LOWERING DIGNITY OF PROFESSION

44. DC Appeal No. 14/1988 16(2) 1989 IBR 258 95
45. DC Appeal No. 10/1988 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 572 98
ACTING IN A CASE IN WHICH THE ADVOCATE HAS PECUNIARY INTEREST,

SHARING PROFITS OF CASE AND LENDING MONEY TO THE CLIENT
46. DC Appeal No. 23/1988 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 532 100
CONVICTION FOR OFFENCE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

48. DC Appeal No. 45/1974 15(1&2) 1988 IBR 182 104
FORGERY
OTHER MISCONDUCT (MAKING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VARIOUS AUTHORITIES)

51. DC Appeal No. 43/1996 24(3&4) 1997 IBR 207 109
CASE 1
(Negligence in Conducting Case)
25(1) 1998 IBR135
D.C. Appeal No. 16/1993
A vs. R
Shri C.L. Sachdeva (Chairman) and Shri O.P. Sharma and Shri T.P. Singh (Members)

This document is...
Judgement Dated 5th October, 1996
Scribd  FACTS OF THE CASE
Books, audiobooks, andComplainant’s

 Useful
more. Case: Complainant had executed a registered sale deed with an option to
 Not useful
repurchase a house property situate in Deeravalli village in favour of one Lanka Samba

Get our free app Shiva Rao. However, the Complainant continued to be in possession and enjoyment of
the property. Vendor made attempts to take the possession of the property forcibly in
ll i i h h li dC l i fil d i f i j i i hi h h
collusion with the police and Complainant filed a suit for injunction against him through
his Advocate, i.e., the Respondent at OS No. 87/85. Vendors also filed a counter suit at
Search  
OS No. 89/85 against the Complainant in the Sub-Court of Gudivada for foreclosure of
the mortgage, claiming the above mentioned sale deed as mortgage deed. This was 
opposed by the Complainant in his Written Statement wherein he claimed that the
document is sham and nominal.
In the mean while in OS No. 87/85 Court ordered for payment of deficit Court fee under
sec. 24 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Complainant
Download Now 
alleges that the Respondent was negligent in conducting the case and did not inform the
Complainant regarding any progress of the case as a result of which the order of the
Court for payment of deficit Court fee could not be complied with. This resulted in
rejection of the plaint. Even this was not intimated to the Complainant by the
Respondent. The Complainant further alleges that there was no negligence on his part

and he regularly kept in touch with the Respondent-Advocate and asked him about the
Try Scribd for Free

stages of both the suits. However, he did not get true reply from the Respondent. On
23.9.1991 he came to know from some other persons that OS No. 87/85 was dismissed
long back, on 15.4.1986, and that OS No. 89/85 was allowed. On verification, the
Complainant found the rumours true. On 24.9.1991 the Complainant met Respondent-
Advocate and requested him to return the papers of both suits with a “no objection” to
engage another Advocate.
OS No. 89/85 was posted on 27.9.91 for the examination of PW3. On 25.9.1991, the
Respondent-Advocate returned the Complainant’s papers in OS No. 89/85 only, and
promised to take adjournment on 27.9.1991. Accordingly, on 27.9.1991 he obtained

adjournment of OS No. 89/85 to 4.10.91. However, later the case was again advanced
and the evidence of PW3 was recorded. Against his own promise, Respondent-Advocate
cross-examined PW3.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent-Advocate denied the averments of the complaint and

blamed the Complainant for non-payment of Court fee in OS No. 87/89.
PROCEEDINGS
The D.C. of S.B.C. framed as many as eight issues and heard the parties on 22.6.1995
assisted by their counsels. Both the parties also submitted their written arguments.
Respondent’s daughter who had joined the profession recently also filed a mercy
application.
The D.C. of S.B.C. after going through the records passed a speaking order with the
following observations:
1. When the Complainant sought “no objection” to change Advocates, the

Respondent should have given his no objection and retire from the case without
any hesitation.
2. It is unbecoming of an Advocate to keep his client in darkness about the

progress of the case. The Respondent did the same thing in this case. Therefore,
he could not make good deficit of Court fee and consequently the plaint in OS
No. 87/85 was rejected. The evidence of RW1 and RW2 in respect of the
financial capacity of the Complainant is not acceptable. Allegation that OS No.
87/85 was dismissed on 15.4.86 due to negligence of Respondent stands
established.
3. Respondent-Advocate has cross-examined PW3 in OS No. 89/95 without the

consent and knowledge of the Complainant, especially when Complainant had
lost confidence in the Respondent. It is accepted that the Respondent promised
to obtain adjournment in OS No. 89/85, but cross-examined PW3 therein in the
absence of the Complainant.
4. Respondent has admitted that he refused to file delay condonation application

in application for restoration of OS No. 87/85, which is unbecoming of him.
5. Evidence of the Complainant to the effect that Respondent-Advocate did not

return the records in OS No. 87/85 to the Complainant is accepted.
On the above grounds the D.C. of S.B.C. by its order dated 14.3.1993 debarred the
Respondent-Advocate from practice for a period of One year.


This document is...
Books, audiobooks, and
more.to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! 
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days
Get our free app
Start Free Trial
Search   
Cancel Anytime.
Download Now 

3 50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India

ORDER

Try Scribd for Free

D.C. of B.C.I. found no reason to differ with the order and reasons of the D.C. of S.B.C.
In the circumstances, the order passed by the S.B.C. was affirmed and the appellant was
directed to undergo the punishment imposed by the D.C. of S.B.C. The stay order of the
S.B.C. was vacated.
CASE 2
25(1) 1998 IBR153
A vs. R
Shri D.V. Patil (Chairman) and Shri S.C. Chawla and Shri S.G. Nair (Members)
Judgement Dated 8th December, 1996
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: In 1981 the Complainant paid in all Rs. 70,000 to Rao & Raju
Builders Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, for the construction of a 3 bed room house in the plot
allotted to him. But the builders failed to perform their obligation under the contract.
Complainant met Mr. Rao, Managing Director of the concern to settle the matter
amicably. Mr. Rao referred the Complainant to the Respondent-Advocate to seek his
advice. Complainant met the Respondent in March 1984 and the Respondent advised
the Complainant to file a suit against the builders for recovery of money. Complainant
engaged the Respondent by paying Rs. 5,000 and signed the plaint.
Later the Complainant requested his brother-in-law who was also his General Power of 
Attorney-holder to pursue the matter. Complainant’s brother-in-law met the Respondent
in 1991 and enquired about the progress. Respondent told him that suit was still in
This document is...
Scribd  registration stage and was yet to be numbered.
Books, audiobooks, andComplainant

 Useful
more. sent a registered letter dated 4.9.91 to the Respondent along with a D.D.
 Not useful

Get our free app
for Rs. 400 towards the expenses and requested him to expedite the matter. As there
was no reply to this letter, he sent another registered letter dated 18.12.1991. Even for
this letter, he did not receive any reply. Therefore, the Respondent has committed
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

CASE 3
(Validity of Order of S.B.C. Passed after the Statutory Period of One Year)
24(3&4) 1997 IBR193
A vs. R
Shri G.D. Bhatt (Chairman) and Shri J.B. Pardiwala and Shri V.R. Sharma (Members)
Judgement Dated 1st June, 1996
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: One Subhash Jain, brother of the Complainant was convicted
under sec. 302, I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He applied
under sec. 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1954 before the
Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at M.P. No. 14/92. The same came to be
dismissed by the High Court on 8.1.1992. Against this Order of the High Court in M.P.
No. 14/92, the Complainant’s brother wanted to prefer SLP and the Complainant
engaged the Respondent for the said purpose. Respondent-Advocate demanded Rs.
15,000 towards his professional fees and expenses. Complainant promptly paid the
same to the Respondent along with case papers.

After some time, the Complainant enquired with the Respondent about the progress in
the case. Respondent informed that he had filed S.L.P. and show cause notices had been
issued by the Hon’ble S.C. After persistent demand from the Complainant, Respondent
sent a copy of S.L.P. and the alleged order of the S.C. The Complainant was suspicious
about the genuineness of these documents and on further probe into the matter found
that they were all forged documents and no S.L.P. had in fact been filed by the
Respondent–Advocate.
Hence, the Respondent has committed misconduct by not filing Special Leave Petition in
spite of payment of fees as demanded by him.
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

This document is...
Scribd  Start Free Trial

Get our free app Cancel Anytime.

Search   
PROCEEDINGS
Download Now D.C. of S.B.C. framed the following issues:


1. Whether the Respondent-Advocate had been engaged by the Complainant for
filing of a S.L.P. before the Supreme Court against the order in MP No. 14/92 
dated 8.1.1992, and for this purpose had he paid a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the
Respondent-Advocate towards the fees?
Try Scribd for Free

2. Whether the alleged copy of the S.L.P. and copy of Supreme Court order was
sent by the Respondent to the Complainant?

3. Whether the copy of the S.L.P. order and petition sent by the Respondent-
Advocate was not genuine and fake one?
4. Whether on proof of allegation, the Respondent-Advocate is guilty of

professional misconduct?
After going through the evidence, D.C. of S.B.C. found Respondent guilty of professional
misconduct and passed an order dated 2.4.1994 suspending his sanad for a period of 7
years, and also ordered that if the Respondent refunds the amount of Rs. 15,000 with
interest at bank rate to the Complainant his sanad would be suspended for 5 years only.
In the appeal, Respondent’s case was based on a preliminary contention that the order
of the S.B.C. was vitiated as the same was passed beyond the stipulated period of 1 year.
In support of this submission, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of Madras High
Court reported in 1986(2) MLJ 362. In the opinion of the DC of the BCI, this ground
raised by the Respondent was well founded. Though this question was not raised before
S.B.C. and also the appeal memo was silent on this point. B.C.I. allowed this question as
it went to the root of the matter.
The B.C.I. decided the following issue as preliminary issue:
Whether the impugned judgement and order dated 2.4.94 of the D.C. & S.B.C. is
vitiated on the ground that it is passed beyond the period of limitation of 1 year
envisaged under sec. 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961?
S.B.C. actually received the complaint on 11.11.1992. S.B.C. referred the complaint to
D.C. on 23.1.1993. Notices were issued to the parties by D.C. on 28.2.1993. First date of
hearing was fixed on 8.4.1993. The order was passed on 2.4.1994.
Sec. 36B(1) provides that proceedings shall be concluded within a period of 1 year from
the date of receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the complaint at the
instance of S.B.C., as the case may be. Hence, in this case the order passed on 2.4.94 is

beyond this period mentioned in the Act. Immediately after the lapse of 1 year, the case
stands transferred to the B.C.I. and the S.B.C. has no jurisdiction to pass any order in
the matter. Therefore, the order dt.2.4.94 passed by the S.B.C. is bad in as much as it
was passed without any jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the Respondent also invited the attention of B.C.I. to the provisions
of Rule 17(2) in Part VII of the B.C.I. Rules, which reads as under:
“The date of receipt of the complaint or date of initiation of the proceedings at the
instance of the S.B.C. shall be the date on which the S.B.C. refers the case for
disposal to its D.C. under sec. 35(1).”
As S.B.C. referred the complaint to D.C. on 23.1.1993 and the order was passed on
2.4.1994, it was clear that the order was passed beyond the period of 1 year as
contemplated by sec. 35(1) of Advocates Act r/w Rule 17(2) of B.C.I. Rules.
Therefore, in the opinion of the B.C.I. the order of the S.B.C. was vitiated and was liable
to be set aside. Now the proceedings were deemed to be transferred to B.C.I. Therefore,
obviously they were treated as pending before B.C.I. and were to be disposed of by B.C.I.
in accordance with law. It was now an original proceeding before B.C.I.
B.C.I. further observed that part of the evidence recorded by D.C. of S.B.C. fell within
the limitations and remaining was recorded beyond that period. Now B.C.I. had to decide
while hearing the case as original proceeding whether it could act upon that evidence or
whether the parties should give additional evidence.
ORDER
The appeal was partly allowed. Impugned order dated 2.4.94 passed by Indore Bench of
Madhya Pradesh S.B.C. in CC No. 67/92 was quashed and set aside. The proceedings of

CC No. 67/92 were held to have stood transferred to the B.C.I. and it was observed that
the B.C.I. would proceed further in accordance with law.
This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now


CASE 4
Try Scribd for Free

24(3&4) 1997 IBR 201
B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 76/1995
C vs. R
Shri Jagannath Patnaik (Chairman) and Shri Ashok Deb and Shri S.K. Padhi (Members)

Judgement Dated 12th December, 1996
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: Complainant engaged Respondent to file a case in respect of theft

committed in his house. Respondent–Advocate gave him a draft complaint, which was
sent to the Commissioner of Police and other authorities by the Complainant.
Respondent also issued notice to the Station House Officer, Lajpat Nagar Police Station,
New Delhi, on behalf of the Complainant for supply of enquiry report. Till then no fees
were settled between the Complainant and the Respondent. Respondent had promised
that he would charge minimum fees. Later on, Complainant paid in all Rs. 4000.00 to
the Respondent out of which Rs. 2000 were towards fees and Rs. 2000 were towards
expenses for filing the case in Court. He singed vakalatnama and gave two sets of papers
to the Respondent. Respondent asked the Complainant to bring certain documents such
as bank passbook, etc. for filing the case. Respondent demanded Rs. 11,000 as his fees.
During the time, Complainant became very busy, instructed the Respondent not to file
the case, and asked him to return Rs. 4000 paid by him. However, the Complainant did
not return the money.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent denied the allegations made by the Complainant. He

categorically denied that he had received any money from the Complainant. He admitted
the facts in the complaint in respect of drafting the complaint and issuing notice etc.
without receiving any fee from the Complainant. He stated that the Complainant was
referred to him by one Shri Manoj Swarup, Supreme Court Advocate, to help the
Complainant, as he was a poor person, without charging any fees. He averred that as
huge amount of money was alleged to be stolen, he asked the Complainant to bring
Photostat copy of the bank passbook so that the charge may be substantiated. He asked
the Complainant to pay him Rs. 2,200 towards fees for filing the case as well as for the
notice and complaint which was drafted by him earlier. After a few days the Complainant
approached the Respondent and told him that he did not want him to file the case and
asked him to return the papers. When the Respondent asked him to sign a receipt for
the said paper, the Complainant refused and left his office and later filed this complaint
against him.
10

PROCEEDINGS
The following issues were framed by the D.C. of the Bar council, after going through the
pleadings of the parties.
1. Whether the Respondent took Rs. 4000 from the Complainant?
2. Whether the Respondent did professional misconduct by not rendering the

service to the Complainant, if he has paid the alleged amount?
3. Any other professional misconduct?
In his evidence, Complainant supported his pleadings. On the question put by the
committee in respect of the professional service rendered to him by the Respondent,
Complainant stated that he was prepared to pay the reasonable fees as may be decided
by the committee. In the cross-examination he stated that in order to pay the fees, he
had borrowed Rs. 4,000 from a neighbouring lady, whose name he did not disclose. He
also stated that no document was executed for the said loan.
In his evidence, Respondent supported his pleadings. In the cross-examination, he

denied the suggestion put to him that he has received Rs. 4,000 towards fees and
expenses and also denied the suggestion that he had demanded Rs. 11,000 towards
fees.

This document is...
The crucial point involved in this case was whether the Complainant has proved his case
to the effect that he paid Rs. 4,000 to the Respondent as alleged. In support of his

allegations, Complainant did not produce any convincing evidence. In his cross-
examination he gave evasive answers of having received the money from his neighbour
and reused to adduce her evidence. As even refused to disclose her name. To the 
Get our free app question put by the committee he agreed to pay reasonable fee for the professional
service rendered to him by the Respondent. If he had already paid Rs. 4000 to the
Respondent as alleged by him he would have requested the committee to order refund of
Respondent as alleged by him, he would have requested the committee to order refund of
Rs. 4000 after deducting the reasonable fee. It is not uncommon practice when a senior
colleague sends a case to another colleague with a request to help the client, normally
Search 
the Advocate obliges. In this case also, the D.C. of B.C.I. felt that the Respondent might
have drafted complaint and issued notice without charging any fees. The D.C. of the
 
B.C.I. felt that it was not unjustified on the part of Respondent to demand receipt from
the complaint for having received the document.
Therefore, the Complainant failed to prove his case against the Respondent for
professional misconduct.
Download Now 
ORDER
As such the complaint was dismissed. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

Try Scribd for Free

CASE 5
(Negligence in Conducting Case and Misleading Client)

23(1) 1996 IBR 155
B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 104/1990
C vs R
Shri Jagannath Patnaik (Chairman) and Shri Ashok Deb and Shri S.K. Padhi (Members)
Judgement Dated 19th November, 1995
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: The Complainant had filed a suit in respect of an immovable

property and had appointed the Respondent-Advocate to represent him in the said case.
The Complainant visited the Respondent on different dates to ask about the progress of
the case. He was informed that the case was pending in the Court of the Rent Controller.
After a considerable time, the Complainant discovered that the case had been dismissed
for default long back. The Complainant’s efforts to restore the case through another
Advocate did not yield any results and he was constrained to file a fresh case.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent admitted that he had represented the Complainant in

the said case, but could not give any reason for the dismissal of the case for default, and
also for making the false representations to the Complainant that the case was pending.
PROCEEDINGS
Therefore, the B.C.I. had no hesitation in holding that the Respondent had committed
professional misconduct as it is well settled that gross negligence on the part of an
Advocate which leads to the suffering and harassment of the client will amount to
misconduct, and that it was exactly what had happened in this case.
The Respondent-Advocate had neither expressed remorse nor tendered apology in his
defence. On the contrary, he had unnecessarily tried to put blame upon the
Complainant himself. It was also brought to the notice of the D.C. of B.C.I. that the
Respondent-Advocate had committed similar misconduct in the past and had been
punished with suspension for a period of 1 month. That order was confirmed by the
Supreme Court of India.
ORDER
In view of all these circumstances, the D.C. of B.C.I. found it proper to suspend the
Respondent-Advocate from practice for a period of six months.
12
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime. 
This document is...


Get our free app

CASE 6
(Negligence in Conducting Case and Threatening Client)
21(1) 1994 IBR 187
Search
  
Kapil Dev Singh vs. Prem Nath
Shri V.C. Sharma (Chairman) and Shri B.N. Sharma and Shri Sarvesh Sharam
(Members)
Download Now Judgement Dated 20th May, 1990


FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant’s Case: Complainant was a party in two cases. He wanted to file two Writ
Try Scribd for Free

Petitions against some orders in those two cases. He engaged the Respondent-Advocate
as his counsel for filing these Writ Petitions, and paid him Rs. 2000. Complainant also
handed over the necessary case papers to the Respondent along with several signed
plain papers. Respondent assured the Complainant that he would file the Writ Petitions
before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. After a few days, when the Complainant
met the Respondent, Respondent told him that he had already got the Writ Petitions filed
through a High Court Advocate. However, he could not tell the name of the High Court
Advocate. Becoming suspicious about the whole incident, the Complainant made
enquiries and found that the Writ Petitions were not filed. Therefore, he met the
Respondent and asked him to refund the money and also to return the papers. Realising
the trouble, the Respondent threatened and insulted the Complainant. Thereby, he has
committed misconduct.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent in his defence denied all the contentions of the
Complainant. He denied that the Complainant engaged him as Advocate and that he had
accepted the vakalatnama . But he did not deny the payment of Rs. 2,000 or the delivery
of papers to him. He contended that the relation between the parties was strained, and
out of animosity, the Complainant had filed this false complaint. The B.C.I. was
surprised to see that the defence was not verified as required under the provisions of
CPC, and therefore, it did not find the defence admissible. The Respondent also did not
care to file any affidavit in support of his defence. Therefore, all his contentions were
ignored by the B.C.I.
13
PROCEEDINGS
The Respondent did not even care to appear before the D.C. of either the S.B.C. or the
B.C.I. Hence, D.C. of B.C.I. recorded the statement of the Complainant on oath and
decided the matter on the strength of the records. As the Respondent did not forcefully
and successfully oppose the complaint, the D.C. of the B.C.I. had no hesitation in
upholding the contentions in the complaint, and to hold the Respondent guilty of
misconduct as alleged in the complaint.
ORDER
The Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of six months.

This document is...

Get our free app

Search   
CASE 7
(Vicarious Liability for the Acts of a Partner)
Download Now 16(2) 1989 IBR 264


State Bank of India vs. Mrs. S. and Co.
Try Scribd for Free

Shri B.P. Samaiyar (Chairman) and Shri K.P. Sinha and Shri V.C. Mishra (Members)
Judgement Dated 4th March 1989
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant filed the complaint before the S.B.C. and the same was referred by the
S.B.C. to one of its D.C.s. Obviously, the D.C. of the S.B.C. could not conclude the case

within the statutory period of one year and therefore it stood transferred to the B.C.I.
under sec. 36B of Advocates Act, 1961.
The D.C. of the B.C.I. heard the case on several dates. The evidence on both sides was
recorded and arguments of both sides were heard. The case was posted for judgement.
While writing the judgement the D.C. had some doubts as to the facts and issued notices
to the parties for rehearing. On receiving the notice, the Respondent filed an application
praying the Committee to decide on the maintainability of the case before going into the
merits of the case. On the next date of hearing the Respondent produced certified copies
of two letters written by the Complainant Bank to him and filed an application for taking
those letters on record. The Advocate for Complainant prayed for time for filing
objections to this application and case was adjourned. On the next date of hearing the
Advocate for Complainant submitted that he was not going to file any objections. The
Advocate for Respondent argued on the application. The Advocate of the Complainant
once again prayed for a time for filing objections and submitted that he will argue only
after filing the of the objections. He submitted that on the earlier occasions he had not
received the copies of the letters sought to be produced by the Respondent as evidence,
and therefore he could not file objections. Adjournment was granted as the prayed for.
Even on the next date of hearing, the arguments were not concluded and the case was
adjourned for further hearing. On the date of further hearing, the Advocate for
Complainant filed an adjournment application, which was rejected. The letters were
admitted in evidence and arguments were closed. The judgement was reserved.
15

Complainant’s Case: The Respondent is a Solicitor Firm practising in Delhi.
Complainant Bank and its branches used to entrust most of their cases to the
Respondent Firm. Jungpura Branch of the Complainant Bank entrusted a case to the
Respondent firm against a borrower for breach of financial discipline. The Respondent
advised the Bank to file a criminal complaint and also a civil suit for recovery of money
against the said borrower. According to the Bank, it lodged a Police complaint and filed a
civil suit through the Respondent Firm. The Bank entrusted the valuable original loan
documents to the firm along with fees and expenses.
After few days, the Bank enquired with the Respondent Firm about the name of the
Court in which the suit had been filed and the next date of hearing. But no reply was
received by it from the Respondent Firm. Therefore, it became suspicious that the firm
was withholding vital information regarding the case. It instructed the Respondent Firm
to retire from the case and appointed another Firm to look into the matter. The Bank
was informed by the new Firm that though the suit had been filed by the Respondent
firm, the plaint was returned to it by the Court office for rectifying certain defects in
plaint. But the plaint was not represented. In the meanwhile, the Law Department of the
Complainant Bank came across a case reported in AIR 1978 SC 335. In that case,
strictures were passed by the Supreme Court against a senior member of the
Respondent Firm for a similar conduct in the case reported therein.
Therefore, the Complainant bank believes that the Respondent Firm had
misappropriated the money given to it towards fees and expenses and had failed to
account for the same. The original papers which formed the basis of Complainant Bank’s
claim against the borrower have also been either secreted, destroyed or misappropriated
and converted to their own unlawful benefits by the Respondent Firm. Therefore, the
partners of the Respondent Firm were guilty of professional misconduct. 
This document is...
Respondent’s Case: Only one of the partners appeared and filed his defence. He denied

all the allegations. He contended that the Firm had filed the suit and that the allegation
Books, audiobooks, anddefects

more.
in the complaint to the effect that the same was returned by the Court for rectification of
was false. Hence, he contended that there was no occasion for all holding the 
Get our free app Firm liable for misconduct.
He further contended that the Complainant had signed vakalatnama only in the name of
e u t e co te ded t t t e Co p t d s g ed va a at a a o y t e eo
the senior member of the Firm and not in his name or in the name of any other member
of the firm. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint were true, he is not liable
Search 
because for the misconduct of one partner another partner is not held liable unless they
abetted or they are accessories to the misconduct directly. He contended that there is no
 
vicarious liability. He also raised the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of
the proceedings.
Download Now 


Try Scribd for Free

PROCEEDINGS
On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed:
1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Whether the plaint was returned to the Respondent as alleged?
3. Whether the Respondent wrongfully withheld documents?

The Respondent argued before the Bar of Council of India that the reference of the
complaint by the S.B.C. to its D.C. was mechanical one and the S.B.C. had not applied
its mind to the case before referring it. In its reference the S.B.C. did not mention that
the S.B.C. had considered the complaint and that it had found that there is a prima
facie case. He relied up on the decision of a Supreme Court reported in AIR 19881 SC
477 in support of his argument.
On the perusal of the original records B.C.I. found that the S.B.C. had issued notice to
the Respondent and only after hearing the parties the case was referred to its D.C.
Hence the requirement of law of “reason to believe” was fulfilled. The B.C.I. also felt that
the decision sighted above is not applicable to the instant case. Hence, the objection was
rejected.
On the question as to whether the plaint was returned as alleged, the Complainant
produced a letter written by Respondent Firm to the Complainant. The letter did not
bear the signatures of any of the partners of the Firm, and therefore, was objected by the
Respondent for marking. Complainant stated in his evidence that the plaint was
returned because court fee had not been paid. This was rejected as untrue because if the
court fee is not paid or if it is in the deficit, the plaint is not returned, but time is given
for the payment of deficit court fee. Therefore, the Complainant was held to have failed
in establishing that the plaint had been returned.
However, the Complainant Bank successfully established that it had handed over the
valuable original loan documents to the senior partner of the Respondent Firm. Hence,
the D.C. of B.C.I. held the senior partner of the firm guilty of committing misconduct by
withholding the valuable documents of the Bank. The D.C. of B.C.I. held that the other
partners cannot be vicariously liable for the misconduct of the senior partner, and they
were exonerated of all charges levelled against them.
ORDER
Therefore the senior partner of the firm was found guilty of serious professional
misconduct and was suspended from practice for a period of 5 years. He was also made
liable to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Complainant Bank. Other partners of the
Respondent Firm were exonerated of all charges levelled against them.
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

CASE 8
This document is...
(Latches and Negligence in Conducting the Case)
16(3&4) 1989 IBR 536
D.C. Appeal No. 35/1987 
Get our free app
N.M. vs. V.D.
Shri L.N.K. Singh (Chairman) and Shri Saradindu Biswas and Shri B.R. Ghosal
(Members)
Search Judgement Dated 27th May, 1989   
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: Complainant had engaged Respondent-Advocate to represent him

in a civil suit. In that case, Complainant had filed 11 documents. Subsequently the
Download Now Respondent started pressing the Complainant to enter into compromise. This made the
Complainant suspicious. Therefore, he engaged another Advocate along with the 
Respondent. This Advocate discovered that two very important documents which were
produced in the case were missing from the records. Further inquiry revealed that they 
were taken out by the Respondent and he had signed the List of Documents to that
effect, but had no put date in order to mislead the Complainant. Without the knowledge
Try Scribd for Free

of these events, the Complainant had led his evidence and he was put to embarrassment
as he could not mark these documents. Thus the Respondent has caused unnecessary
expenditure and difficulties to the Complainant due to his latches and negligence.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent denied the case of the Complainant in toto . He denied
having put pressure upon the Complainant for entering into compromise in the said civil
suit. He also denied that another Advocate came to be appointed out of suspicion about
his conduct. He contended that the two documents named in the complaint were taken

by him and he had signed the list of documents. But the Respondent explained this
contention in a different way in his evidence. He told that the suit was decreed ex parte
after recording ex parte evidence of the Complainant. The Complainant had got all
material documents marked during his examination-in-chief. As the suit was decreed,
the Respondent returned the brief to the Complainant. Subsequently the defendants in
the suit applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. Therefore the Respondent requested
the Complainant to return the papers, but they were never returned to him. Another
Advocate was appointed by the Complainant to represent him. Since then, the
Respondent was not in picture. Thus, even if the two papers were removed by the
Respondent, it has not caused any inconvenience or loss to the Complainant.
18

PROCEEDINGS
D.C. of the S.B.C. found that the documents were taken by the Respondent and he had
not proved that they were delivered to the Complainant. He might have misplaced them
negligently. Contrary to his pleadings and evidence that he had returned the brief and
thereafter had no concern in the suit, it appeared from the records that he acted for
Complainant on subsequent dates also. Therefore, there was variance between pleadings
and evidence. Therefore, the Respondent had committed professional misconduct.
It was clear that the Respondent did not have any use for those documents. He had
nothing to gain by concealing them. Therefore, he was only negligent in misplacing the
documents, and no mala fide intention could be attributed to this act of the Respondent.
The Complainant had not proved the allegation that Respondent pressurised him to
enter into a compromise. Under the circumstances, the D.C. of the S.B.C. felt it
sufficient to reprimand the Respondent. He was also made to pay a cost of Rs. 2000 to
the Complainant.
Against the above order appeal was preferred on the following the grounds:
1. That the D.C. of the S.B.C. has grossly erred in finding that the action of the
Respondent is not mala fide .
2. That the learned D.C. has erred in finding that the Complainant will not suffer
any loss on account of the action of the Respondent.
3. That the learned D.C. has failed to see that the Respondent wanted that the
Complainant’s civil suit be dismissed.
4. That the D.C. has awarded a very lenient punishment for the grave professional
misconduct and the D.C. ought to have removed the name of the Respondent
from the Rolls.
ORDER
After hearing the parties at length, the D.C. of the B.C.I. dismissed the appeal on the
following grounds:
1. The D.C. of the B.C.I. completely agreed with the order of the D.C. of the S.B.C.
that no case of mala fides could be made out by the Complainant. It was not
disputed that the Respondent could not gain anything either by withholding the
document or by losing them. It goes without saying that the lost documents
were of no use to the Respondent.

This document is...

Get our free app


p
2. As the burden of proof in the civil suit did not lie on the Complainant but on the
defendants in the suit, and also because the lost documents could be freshly
Search 
obtained by the Complainant, there was no loss to the Complainant in the suit.
However, he would be put to some inconvenience and put to some expenditure
 
in getting these documents freshly. This aspect had been taken into
consideration by the D.C. of the S.B.C. and costs were awarded to the
Complainant to the tune of Rs. 2000.
Download Now 
3. Considering the materials on the record, B.C.I. had no hesitation in holding that
the third ground of appeal was frivolous and baseless. The conduct of the
Respondent might put the Complainant to great difficulties, but it did not go to
prove that the Respondent had the desire to see that his client visits a failure in
the suit. On the contrary it was clear from the records of the case that he had

won a decree for the Complainant, may be the same was an ex parte decree.
Try Scribd for Free

4. The D.C. of S.B.C. had not only reprimanded the Respondent, but also saddled
him with heavy costs. The D.C. of the B.C.I. found the punishment adequate.
CASE 9
14(3) 1987 IBR 488
G vs. M
Shri M.L. Garg (Chairman) and Shri R.S. Mahendra and Shri N.N. Mathur (Members)
Judgement Dated 27th April, 1987
FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: Complainant obtained a temporary injunction against her

husband restraining him from contracting a second marriage. Subsequently the suit was
dismissed for non-prosecution. Taking this opportunity, her husband remarried on
2.5.1985. Thus, due to the negligence of the Respondent in conducting the case, the
Complainant is put to great loss.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent honestly admitted that he did not appear in the case
on the said date and hence the suit was dismissed. He had to attend the marriage of a
relative on the said date and had requested one of his colleagues to represent in that
case. Before the Respondent could move an application for restoration, the Complainant
withdrew the brief from him.
PROCEEDINGS
Neither party led and produced any evidence. The case was decided by the D.C. of the
S.B.C. on the strength of the pleadings alone. It found that there was no negligence on
the part of the Respondent in the non-prosecution of the case, but he was negligent in
not filing the restoration application. As such he was held guilty of misconduct and was
reprimanded.
In the appeal, the Respondent produced a certified copy of an application filed by the
Complainant in the Court of District and Sessions Judge expressing apprehension that

her husband may remarry. The application was filed in July 1985. This showed that the
Complainant’s and averment that her husband had remarried on 2.5.1985 was false. This document is...
Scribd  The Complainant did not appear before the D.C. of the B.C.I. to explain the discrepancy.
 Useful
Thus, the Complainant’s version that the negligence on the part of the Respondent
Books, audiobooks, andanmore.
gave  Not useful
opportunity to her husband to remarry was rejected by the D.C. of the B.C.I.

Get our free app
21
Search   


Further, there was no reason for the D.C. of the B.C.I. to disbelieve the Respondent’s
Download Now version that he was not given any opportunity by the Complainant to file a restoration
application, especially when the same had gone unchallenged by the Complainant. 
Therefore, the view of the D.C. of the S.B.C. that the Respondent was negligent in not
filing the restoration application was held to be not correct. 
Try Scribd for Free

ORDER
Therefore, the appeal was allowed and their order and judgement of the D.C. of the
S.B.C. was reversed setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Respondent was
exonerated of all the charges levelled against him.
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.
CASE 10
(Negligence in Conducting the Case, Inordinate Delay in Filing the Complaint)
14(4) 1987 IBR 735

This document is...
C vs. P
Shri N. Rangaraj (Chairman) and Shri K.N. Rajashekhar and Shri P.V. Shetty (Members)
Judgement Dated 20th March, 1987
FACTS OF THE CASE

Get our free app
Complainant’s Case: Complainant and his wife wanted to purchase flat and they
di f h h f fl i h d l id
p p p y
entered into an agreement for the purchase of a flat with an estate agent, and also paid
him some advance money. But the estate agent tried to dupe them. In order to take legal
Search  
recourse the Complainant approached the Respondent-Advocate. Complainant paid Rs.
3,000 to the Respondent towards his fees and expenses and obtained a receipt. But the 
Respondent-Advocate did not take any action. In the meanwhile, the Complainant could
recover almost the entire amount from the estate agent with the help of the Police.
Therefore, he did not feel it necessary to file suit against the estate agent and therefore,
demanded the money back from the Advocate by writing him a letter. But he did not get
any reply from the Advocate. Therefore, he filed a complaint against him for the
Download Now misconduct.


Respondent’s Case: Respondent admitted almost all the facts. But he contended that at
the time of filing the police complaint itself the Complainant had taken back all the
papers as well as the draft plaint prepared by the Respondent. Respondent had drafted

the police complaint and it was agreed that the Respondent should adjust Rs. 500
Try Scribd for Free

towards expenses for effecting the compromise through police and Rs. 1,500 were his
fees. Respondent had returned Rs. 1,000 to the Complainant in cash. He claimed that he
had also received a receipt from the Complainant but it was missing. He expressed
suspicion that it might have gone back to the Complainant along with the case papers.
He also contended that the Complainant has filed the complaint only after six years. If
he were really aggrieved, he would not have waited for six years.
PROCEEDINGS

The D.C. of the S.B.C., after going through the evidence, was of the opinion that the
Respondent had not returned the money to the Complainant and therefore, he was held
guilty of misconduct and was suspended from practice for a period of three years.
23

In the appeal, the Respondent raised a fresh defence that the complaint was time barred
under art. 137 of the Limitation Act. He again stressed that the delay in filing the
complaint itself showed that it was a false complaint.
After going through the records carefully, the D.C. of the B.C.I. was satisfied that the
Respondent had refunded Rs. 1,000 to the Complainant after deducting Rs. 2,000
towards his professional charges. It accepted the contention of the Complainant that due
to inordinate delay in filing the complaint it was very difficult for him to produce the
necessary evidence. D.C. of the B.C.I. accepted all the contentions of the Respondent
and expressed its reluctance to believe that the aggrieved Complainant would have
waited for a long period of six years before filing the complaint.
ORDER
Hence it allowed the appeal, and the conviction and the sentence passed by and the
lower D.C. was set aside. The D.C. of the B.C.I. did not deem it necessary to give its
opinion on the point limitation.

CASE 11
This document is...
(Negligence Not Amounting to Misconduct)

23(1) 1996 IBR 152
Get our free app D.C. Appeal No. 19/1993
A vs R
A vs R
Shri G.D. Bhatt (Chairman) and Shri B.R. Sharma and Shri J.B. Pardiwala (Members)
Search Judgement Dated 30th September, 1995   

FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: In his complaint, the Complainant made several allegations

against the Respondent. The main allegations were,
Download Now 1. That Respondent-Advocate wrongly identified one woman in place of another at
the time of attestation of a General Power of Attorney before the Sub-Registrar. 
2. That the Respondent was in the habit of disclosing privileged communications 
and secrets of his clients to the opposite parties for his personal benefits.
Try Scribd for Free

3. That the Respondent used to misuse the names of the presiding officers to get
briefs.
4. That the Respondent was working as an estate agent.
Respondent’s Case: In his defence, the Respondent denied all the allegations levelled by
the Complainant against him. He, however, admitted that he had identified some ladies
at the time of attestation of the G.P.A., but contended that he had acted in good faith at
the instance of a deed writer.

PROCEEDINGS
The D.C. of S.B.C. held the Respondent guilty of misconduct only on account of his
identifying the wrong persons at the time of attesting the GPA before the Sub-Registrar.
The S.B.C. was silent about all other allegations.
The D.C. of B.C.I. went through all the records of the case thoroughly. The GPA in
question was executed by four ladies, out of which three ladies were present at the time
of attestation, and in place of the fourth lady, another woman was made to be present
before the Sub-Registrar. They were all identified by the Respondent-Advocate. This was
an admitted fact. The question before the D.C. of B.C.I. was whether this was a bona
fide mistake on the part of the Respondent or was done with a mala fide intention of
25
causing wrongful loss to another person. The records revealed that the GPA was not
used to the prejudice of the lady in whose place the wrong woman was identified. The
said lady had applied for the cancellation of the GPA on the ground that a wrong lady
was identified in her place, and also for an action against the deed writer. The
GPA-holder admitted in his evidence that the Respondent had represented the accused
in a criminal complaint filed by the Complainant herein. Other serious allegations made
in the complaint were not pressed evidently for the lack of evidence.
In view of all these circumstances, the D.C. of the B.C.I. felt that the reason given by the
Respondent that he had identified a wrong lady at the instance of the deed writer was
acceptable. The Disciplinary Proceedings being quasi criminal in nature, the
Complainant has to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, Complainant
had failed to prove mens rea beyond reasonable doubt.
ORDER
Hence, the appeal was allowed and the punishment awarded to the Respondent by the
D.C. of S.B.C. was set aside.
The D.C. of B.C.I. relied upon decisions reported in 1995 Chandigarh LR 167 and AIR
1940 All. 289.

This document is...

Get our free app
CASE 12
Search (Negligence Not Amounting to Misconduct)

  
16(2) 1989 IBR 273
R.M. vs. A.R. and P.M.
Download Now Shri V. Rajayah (Chairman) and Shri N. Rangaraj and Shri V.R. Reddy (Members)

Judgement Dated 2nd September 1988

FACTS OF THE CASE
Try Scribd for Free

Complainant’s Case: Complainant entrusted to the Respondent certain files and
records for a filing of two cases. These cases were to be filed against the Stock Exchange
and a company for not delivering shares to him as per the agreement. These two files
contained very important records. One of them was a letter from the company admitting
liability to pay Rs. 51,900 to the Complainant.
Respondent No. 1 advised the company that there is no use in filing the legal
proceedings against the company and that it is better to settle the matter out of the

Court through Respondent No. 2. But the efforts for settling the case out of Court were
not fruitful and Complainant sought for the return of papers. In the mean time,
Respondent No. 2 left Madras and settled at Salem. Respondent No. 1 gave a letter to the
Complainant addressing the Respondent No. 2 for return of those files. Complainant met
Respondent No. 2 at Salem, but could recover only one file. Even though persistent
efforts were made, the Complainant could not recover the files from the Respondents.
The file contained material documents on which the Complainant’s claim against the
company was based. As such, the Respondents have committed the professional
misconduct by not returning the papers.
Respondent No. 1’s Case: Respondent No. 1 admitted that he was approached by the
Complainant with the said case. But he contended that he was not well versed in subject
and therefore, he referred the case to Respondent No. 2, and thereafter Respondent No.
2 took all the responsibilities of the case. Hence, he has nothing to do with the alleged
misconduct.
Respondent No. 2’s Case: Respondent No. 2 admitted that the case was referred to him
by Respondent No. 1 and also that the two files were entrusted to him by the
Complainant. He also admitted that he had advised for settlement of the matter out of
Court and that the settlement could not be materialised. In the meanwhile, due to old
27
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

age and certain other problems he had to leave Madras once for all and settle at Salem.
Thereafter the Complainant approached him and sought for return of the files. He
returned the first file, but could not trace the second. He searched his office thoroughly
and also got the office of the Respondent No. 1 searched thoroughly. Respondent No. 2
categorically stated that Respondent No. 1 was in no way involved in the case but for the
fact that the case came to Respondent No. 2 through Respondent No. 1. He stated that
allegations made against Respondent No. 1 were absolutely incorrect. Respond No. 2
also stated that he did not conceal any file, and at the age of 70 years he had no
necessity for doing so. First file contained all the material documents and the second file
did not contain any material documents. All material documents on which the claim of
the Complainant was based were returned to him and hence there is no case of

misconduct against him also.
PROCEEDINGS
This document is...
Books, audiobooks, andrecorded.
 Useful
Complainant examined himself as his witness and his examination-in-chief was
more.The case was posted for his cross-examination. But he did not present himself
 Not useful

Get our free app for cross-examination. The Complainant was absent before the S.B.C. on many
occasions earlier also. Keeping in view the nature of allegations made by the
Complainant against the Respondents and his conduct before the D.C. of the S.B.C., the
S.B.C. dismissed the case for default.
Search  
The Complainant could have filed an application before the S.B.C. itself for restoration of
the complaint. But he chose to prefer appeal against the order of the S.B.C. But he was 
not present before the Bar of Council of India also in spite of the notice served upon him.
He submitted through a letter that he knew only Tamil and could not argue either in the
English or in Hindi. Therefore, he requested the D.C. of the B.C.I. to decide the case on
the merits from the records only. The inquiry was held at Madras. Even then, the
Complainant remained absent. The Respondents were present both before the S.B.C.
Download Now and before the B.C.I. throughout the proceedings.

The B.C.I. looked into the pleadings and material documents present it in the case by
the parties. In his appeal memo, the Complainant had made several allegations against 
the Chairman and the Members of the D.C. of the S.B.C. and had contended that it was
a waste of time to be present before them as they were favouring the Respondents. He
Try Scribd for Free

did not have any hope of getting justice from them. B.C.I. took these allegations
seriously, and observed that the Complainant had no business to say any such thing
against the Chairman or the Members of the D.C. of S.B.C. without cogent evidence in
support of such allegations. However, the B.C.I. also observed that D.C. of S.B.C. had
not given the Complainant sufficient opportunity for cross-examination.
One of the letters produced by the Complainant was addressed to Respondent No. 1,
which stated that Respondent No. 2 was supporting the company, and blackmailing the

Complainant. Hence, he should make all efforts to get the papers back from Respondent

No. 2. He had also sent a D.D. for Rs. 240 with the letter. This D.D. was not encashed
by Respondent No. 1 as he had nothing to do with the case. The letter also clearly
disclosed that it is only Respondent No. 2 who was involved in the case. Hence, B.C.I.
had no hesitation in holding that the case against Respondent No. 1 was not proved.
From the pleadings and evidence it was clear that Respondent No. 2 was negligent in
losing the case papers entrusted to him. But this negligence did not amount to
misconduct. B.C.I. relied upon the decision of a Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC
101 which is based on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1926 Mad
568.
ORDER
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000 payable to Respondent No.
1 only.
CASE 13
(Negligence Not Amounting to Misconduct)
16(2) 1989 IBR 285
D.C. Appeal No. 3/1988 

J.M. vs. S.S.
This document is...
 Useful
Shri V. Rajayah (Chairman) and Shri N. Rangaraj and Shri V.R. Reddy (Members)
 Not useful
Judgement Dated 2nd September 1988 
Get our free app
FACTS OF THE CASES
Complainant’s Case: The Complainant had met with an accident due to a rash and
Search  
negligent driving of a lorry driver, due to which the lorry hit against the Complainant.
The Complainant was hospitalised and during the period of his treatment in the hospital 
as an in-patient, he filed a case for compensation against the lorry driver, the lorry
owner and the insurer of the lorry. This case was a filed through a clerk of the
Respondent, who approached the Complainant for the case. After the discharge of the
Complainant from hospital, the Complainant found that no case had been filed by the
Respondent-Advocate. He sought for the return of papers. Even then the papers were not
Download Now returned to him. Hence the Respondent-Advocate is guilty of the grave professional
misconduct by not filing the case in spite of payment of fees and by not returning the 
case papers in spite of the request.
Respondent’s Case: The Respondent admitted the fact that he had filed the case of the

Complainant, but categorically denied that his clerk had approached the Complainant
Try Scribd for Free

for the case. According to the Respondent, a friend of the Complainant had approached
the Respondent for filing of the case. The Respondent further stated that the case filed
by him was returned for the want of certain the particulars. He had written several
letters to the Complainant as well as to the friend of the Complainant who had entrusted
the case to him, for the supply of those details. He had not received any reply from either
of them. The Respondent alleged that the Complainant did not pay him the fees as
promised by him.

Respondent admitted that he had received the letter from the Complainant seeking the
return of papers, but contended that though he had written back to him to come to his
office and collect the papers. But the Complainant did not collect papers from his office.
Therefore he has not committed any misconduct, professional or otherwise.
30
31 50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Co

PROCEEDINGS
After going through the evidence on record, the S.B

Respondent had not produced any evidence to show tha
Complainant. The Respondent had stated that usuall
routine course by the clerk. However he also stated tha
the letter of the Complainant personally. But he had no
But for the self-serving statement of the Respondent
record to show that the letter was supplied by the Resp
S.B.C. found him guilty of misconduct.
As far as filing of case is concerned, the Respondent

case but the same was returned to him for the want of p
Complainant and also his friend for those particulars fo
he had inquired with the police station for those det
Respondent had already collected those details from t
accept this statement of the Complainant, becausean A

those documents. Therefore the Thissay of the
document is...Complainan

Scribd written by the Respondent Useful the

 Not useful were alre

because details
Books, audiobooks, and more. 
Get our free app was rejected by the D.C. of the S.B.C. This view of the S
CASE 14
Now the only question before of the B.C.I. was
Search  (Withholding  Document 
Complainant’s letter by the Respondent amounted
14(3) 1987 IBR 491
professional misconduct. D.C.

D.C. Appeal No.It10/1986
was clear from the record
Download Now inconvenience was caused to the Complainant by  the a
though the Respondent’s act amounted to negligence,  i
R vs. L.J. L.J. vs. R
or other misconduct.
Shri N. Rangaraj (Chairman) and Shri K.N. Rajash
Try Scribd for Free (Members)
In support of its order, the Judgement
B.C.I. reliedDated
upon4th
the August
decisio
in AIR 1984 SC 110, and the decision of Madras Hi
Read568.
Madras Free for 30 Days FACTS OF THE CASE
Complainant’s Case: Complainant had entrusted a Pro

ORDER
to issue a notice to the debtor, and had paid the fees
issued and subsequently the Complainant demanded
In
fileview of the
a suit above some
through circumstances, the D.C.
other Advocate. of the
But the B.C
Re
the order passed by the D.C. of S.B.C.
demanded exorbitant fee through a notice. This was re finding the R
misconduct
that he was and not theliableimpugned order
to pay fees as was set aside.
demanded by In
theth
his demand for the return of the Promissory Note. The R
to return the Promissory Note and the suit became
Complainant to the tune of Rs.11,000.
Respondent’s Case: Respondent admitted the receipt
admitted the demand of fees but justified his claim.
Start Free Trial
exercised his right of lien. The Complainant and the Res
and thereCancel
wereAnytime.
some disputes between their families in
etc. Therefore, this complaint was filed to take revenge.
PROCEEDINGS
From the records and also from the admission of the R

Complainant had entrusted him the Promissory Note
notice was issued by the Respondent, the Complainan
back and also gave a notice that if the Respondent faile
he would file a complaint before the S.B.C. But the Res
notice, let alone to return the Promissory Note. 
This document is...
Scribd

The question
Books, audiobooks, and more. before the D.C. of the S.B.C. was whether

Get our free app withhold the document. Normally no Advocate issues a
charges. Therefore, the Respondent’s demand for fees
found to be unusual.Respondent justified
Search  his claim
 f
that he had prepared plaint. But the Complainant s
instructions for preparing the plaint. Further, the Resp
Download Now 

32
Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Readover
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access Free125
formillion
30 Days titles without ads or interruptions!
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 
Trusted by over 1 million members 
Tryover
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access Scribd
125for Freetitles without ads or interruptions!
million
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download
Try Nowfor 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
Scribd FREE

TryStart Free Trial

Scribd for Free
Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
to access over 125 million
Try Scribd FREE for 30 daysSearch 
titles without ads or interruptions! 
Start Free Trial

Download Now 
Cancel Anytime.

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

Trusted by over 1 million members This document is...
Books, audiobooks, and
more.to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! 
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days
Get our free app
Start Free Trial
Search   
Cancel Anytime.
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...
Start Free Trial  Useful  Not useful

Get our free app Cancel Anytime.
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime. 
This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app
Search   
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free
Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read For Free This document is...

Get our free app Cancel Anytime
Search   
Share this document

Download Now 
     
Try Scribd for Free

Related Interests
Advocate Lawsuit Pleading Supreme C
Documents Similar To 50 Op…
Osmania University Income Tax Study

LLB Question… Authorities in Ind… Theo
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLO
Midhun Kuma… Amit Srivastava K
ABOUT SUPPORT
About Scribd Help / FAQ
Press Accessibility
Our blog Purchase help
Join our team! AdChoices
Contact Us Publishers
Invite Friends
Gi s
LEGAL
    
Terms This document is...
Privacy

Copyright
Get our free app
Search   
Copyright © 2019 Scribd Inc. . Browse Books . Site Directory . Site Language: English
Download Now 

Try Scribd for Free

This document is...

Get our free app

50 Opinion - Advocate - Lawsuit PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

50 Opinion - Advocate - Lawsuit PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Search   

50 OPINIONS OF BAR COUNCIL OF

    Osmania Income Tax Study of Hohfeld

Download Now 23 of 115  Search document 

KARNATAK LAW SOCIETY’S

RAJA LAKHAMGOUDA LAW COLLEGE

Start Free Trial

Try Scribd for Free

Read Free for 30 Days

CASES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT DECIDED BY

NEGLIGENCE IN CONDUCTING CASE

4. BCI Transfer Case No. 76/1995 24(3&4) 1997 IBR 201 10

12. DC Appeal No. 24/1987 16(2) 1989 IBR 273 27

Books, audiobooks, and more.

MISLEADING CLIENT, CHEATING THE CLIENT, MAKING FALSE ASSURANCES

Download Now 27.

Read Free for 30 Days

INTERFERING WITH THE DECISION BY INFLUENCING THE JUDGE

MAKING SCANDALOUS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDING OFFICER

CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF AN ADVOCATE, LOWERING DIGNITY OF PROFESSION

ACTING IN A CASE IN WHICH THE ADVOCATE HAS PECUNIARY INTEREST,

CONVICTION FOR OFFENCE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE

OTHER MISCONDUCT (MAKING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VARIOUS AUTHORITIES)

D.C. Appeal No. 16/1993

Scribd  FACTS OF THE CASE

Books, audiobooks, andComplainant’s

Try Scribd for Free

50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India 2

Respondent’s Case: Respondent-Advocate denied the averments of the complaint and

1. When the Complainant sought “no objection” to change Advocates, the

2. It is unbecoming of an Advocate to keep his client in darkness about the

3. Respondent-Advocate has cross-examined PW3 in OS No. 89/95 without the

4. Respondent has admitted that he refused to file delay condonation application

5. Evidence of the Complainant to the effect that Respondent-Advocate did not

Trusted by over 1 million members

3 50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India

Try Scribd for Free

Read Free for 30 Days

D.C. Appeal No. 8/1994

Judgement Dated 8th December, 1996

FACTS OF THE CASE

Books, audiobooks, andComplainant

Try Scribd for Free

D.C. Appeal No. 20/1994

Judgement Dated 1st June, 1996

FACTS OF THE CASE

same to the Respondent along with case papers.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Download Now D.C. of S.B.C. framed the following issues:

Try Scribd for Free

sent by the Respondent to the Complainant?

4. Whether on proof of allegation, the Respondent-Advocate is guilty of

Read Free for 30 Days

The B.C.I. decided the following issue as preliminary issue:

9 50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India

Try Scribd for Free

B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 76/1995

Read Free for 30 Days

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant’s Case: Complainant engaged Respondent to file a case in respect of theft

Respondent’s Case: Respondent denied the allegations made by the Complainant. He

11 50 Selected Opinions of the Bar Council of India

1. Whether the Respondent took Rs. 4000 from the Complainant?