Professional Ethics Cases
Landmark judgment cases in high court
1. Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2021)
Facts of the case
In this case, the wife of the deceased victim appealed against the order of the High
Court in granting bail to the accused who was arrested under charges of Section
120B, Section 302, Sections 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged by the
appellant that the accused is a contract killer and has at least 15 cases registered against him,
including murder, attempt to murder, and criminal conspiracy. The appellant has also argued
that the learned High Court has not taken into consideration the past criminal history of the
accused before acquitting him and the threatening of the witnesses which has forced the
Sessions Court to grant protection to the witnesses.
Judgment of the court
The Apex court in this case was of the view that the High Court has indeed erred in granting bail
to the accused without taking into consideration the threats the accused has been making to the
witnesses which have forced the Sessions Court to grant police protection to the witnesses. The
Apex Court, while emphasizing the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P (2015), held that the
courts must consider every aspect of the criminal before granting bail. It further emphasized the
case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) and highlighted certain
factors for High Courts to exercise their discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions:
Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence.
Nature and gravity of accusations.
The severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction.
The danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail.
Character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused.
Likelihood of repetition of the offence.
Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced.
The danger of justice being thwarted by a grant of bail.
2. Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur (2021)
Facts of the case
In the case of Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur (2021), an application was filed by the
plaintiff to remove the written statement submitted by the defendant on the ground that the
same was submitted before the Court after the stipulated period laid down under Order 8 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the issue in hand that was to be dealt with by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was whether a delay in filing of the written statement was to
be accepted or not by the Court. The defendant had contended the allegations made by the
plaintiff on grounds that his plaint stands were rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of
1908.
The Delhi High Court in this case observed the following points:
1
1. The written statement was filed by the defendant on 15.02.2020 which was beyond
the period 120 days from the date of receipt of summons by the defendant from the
Court.
2. The application that was submitted by the defendant provided no reasonable grounds
for delay in filing of the written statement.
3. The defendant herself had stated in the application that she had voluntarily refrained
from filing a written statement previously within the stipulated period of time.
Taking into consideration these aspects, the Court allowed the application filed by the
plaintiff.
3. T. N. Raghupathy vs High Court of Karnataka and others.
Facts of the case
In this case, the appellant claimed a writ of mandamus for forming new norms in
consonance with the provisions mentioned in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, relating to
the designation of Senior Advocates. The Court observed that the appellant did not have any
locus standi to file a writ petition in view of the public interest. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
K. K. Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam and Mr. Aditya Sondhi
submitted before the High Court that it is not right in holding that view. Some of the issues
that were raised in the writs did require consideration. It was concerned with the High Court
only, as it is the High Court that deals with the formation of rules, guidelines, regulation
regarding the designation of the Senior Advocates. Hence the impugned order was set aside
and the High Court was requested to consider the matter on merits.
4. Thyssen Krupp Industris vs Suresh Maruti Chougule, Union of India, Bar Council of
India and Others
Facts of the case
In this case, the Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge questioning the
constitutional validity of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It restricts the
appearance of lawyers in labour courts and tribunals stating that there must be a legal
distinction between the right of an advocate to practice law under Section 29 and 30 of
Advocates Act and the right to appear and address a court of law or tribunal. The welder filed
an application against the engagement of Thyssen’s with a legal practitioner, which was
allowed by the Court. Thyssen’s counsel argued that the assistance of a trained advocate is
essential due to the complicacy related with the industrial adjudication. Due to this, the
companies are unable to represent their case before a labour court effectively. The counsel on
behalf of the welder argued that, right to practice law is not a Fundamental Right, vested or a
legal right, thus a party cannot claim such a right to engage an advocate. The High Court held
that there is a legal distinction between the two Acts and the right to practice guaranteed
under Advocates Act do not confer on a litigant the right to get represented by any particular
advocate, but can only be represented by an advocate if necessary. And, the right to practice
is not an absolute right but only restricted in nature. It was also observed that, as Fundamental
Rights do not provide a litigant the right to be represented by a lawyer in a court, it becomes
difficult to accept the arguments that Section 36(4) of ID Act is unconstitutional and ultra
vires with Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Virender Singh v. the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited (2021)
The Delhi High Court in the notable case of Virender Singh v. the Delhi State
Cooperative Bank Limited (2021) opined that although there lies no complete bar on the
maintainability of a suit, the court’s scope of interference in such a suit in conducting a
disciplinary inquiry or Show Cause Notice stands limited by nature. The respondent in the
2
present case had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 challenging the suit instituted by the plaintiff on the ground that the same
will not be maintainable under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. This application
was rejected by the trial court.
The Single Judge Bench that consisted of Justice Navin Chawla noted that the burden of
satisfying the trial court and the appellate court to decide on the fate of the case as to whether
it comes under the purview of the limited scope of interference or not rests solely on the
petitioner of the case. The Court went further to decide that the present suit cannot be said to
be maintainable before the appellate court as it was exercising its jurisdiction to decide on the
ad interim order of injunction that the trial court had granted when the petitioner’s application
under Order 39 Rule 1, and 2 of the Code of 1908 was pending before it.
6. Narayanee v. S. Karthik (2021)
The Madras High Court while deciding on the case of Narayanee v. S. Karthik (2021)
that concerned an appeal that was directed against a decision made by a Family Court that
involved dissolving a marriage between two parties. The issue before the Hon’ble High Court
was whether failure on the appellate’s part to take part in a divorce proceeding to which she
is a party will lead to a presumption by the Court that the allegations made by the respondent
against her are accepted by her. The Madras High Court while answering this issue provided
two reasons which are presented hereunder;
Order 8I Rule 5(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states that “every allegation of fact
in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall be taken to
be admitted as against the person who failed to deny the same”. Therefore, in this case, the
absence of the appellate during the divorce proceeding reflects the fact that she has admitted
the allegations made by her husband who is the respondent.
The Court made a combined reading of Order 16, Rule 20, Order 15, Rule 4, and Order 22,
Rule 4 of the Code of 1908 thereafter inferring that if any party whose suit is pending before
the court refuses to provide evidence in support of his or her pleading then the Court can right
away pronounce the judgment thereby disposing of the suit.
7. Prabha Surana v. Jaideep Halwasiya (2021)
The Calcutta High Court while deciding the case of Prabha Surana v. Jaideep
Halwasiya (2021) laid down a proper distinction between temporary injunction under Order
39 Rule 1 and an order for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 which were as follows;
While Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides temporary relief to the
petitioner who is at imminent risk to the disputed property in the suit, which was being
wasted by certain actions of the respondent, Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code applies when the
petitioner seeks to execute a decree provided by the Court while dealing with a suit.
The intention of the Court while applying Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code is to safeguard the
petitioner from any kind of injury in relation to property in dispute that the respondent is
empowered to cause prior to disposing of the suit by the Court. Whereas, the intention
behind Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code is to secure the petitioner from the respondent’s action of
removing the former’s property from the jurisdiction of the Court.
The present case was made out to be falling within the ambit of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code
and therefore, the respondent was restricted from causing any harm to the petitioner’s
property until the Court disposes of the suit, or provides further orders.
3
8. Arvind Jeram Kotecha v. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha (2020)
The Bombay High Court while deciding on the case of Arvind Jeram Kotecha vs.
Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha (2020) took into consideration Section 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 which provides grounds when a foreign judgment is not conclusive. The
Court stated that a bare reading of the provision reflects that for an order or a decree to be
conclusive by nature, the same must have been obtained after a due judicial process that will
include providing reasonable notice, and equal opportunities to the parties in the suit to be
heard. The executing court will therefore not be able to enquire into the legality of the
judgment if it follows a judicial process. The Court in this case concluded that as the
appellate had failed to show that the decree did not fall within any of the exceptions provided
under Section 13 of the Code, the appeal was dismissed.
9. M. Veerabhadra Rao vs Tek Chand on 18 October, 1984 Bar Council of India Rules
1975,
With Rules 34 and 40 of the Civil Rules of Practice framed byAndhra Pradesh High
Court-Advocate be attested affidavit in absence of deponent known to the advocate-Affidavit
found to be forged and led to the commission of fraud and damage to deponent-Whether
constitutes professional misconduct.
HELD: Both the fact finding authorities concurrently recorded the finding that the respondent
did not put his signature on the affidavit, Ex. A-1 in the presence of the appellant and yet the
appellant by contributing his attestation to the affidavit made a declaration that the signature
was of the appellant made in his presence. We consider this unambiguous finding wholly
incontrovertible in the facts of this case that the appellant never appeared before the
respondent either on October 31, 1972 or November 1, 1972.
10. V.P. Kumaravelu vs The Bar Council Of India
These appeals arise from a common order dated 15.5.1986 passed by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.I.T. Case Nos.48 and 49 of 1985. These two
cases pertain to the appellant and were transferred to the appellant and were transferred to the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under the provisions of Section 36B(1) of
the Advocates Act, 1961 as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
could not dispose of these cases within the prescribed period of one year. On or about 21st of
October, 1978, the appellant was appointed as City Government Pleader in all the Civil
Courts constituted in Madras other than the High Court of Madras. The work was spread over
several courts in Madras and the appellant as the city Government Pleader was required to
conduct all the civil matters pending in the civil courts of Madras except the High Court, on
behalf of the Government and also to give his opinion on these matters from time to time
when required. The appellant was allowed the assistance of juniors who were not appointed
by the Government. The respondent was provided with staff.
11. Ram Bharosey Agarwal vs Har Swarup Maheshwari on 27 April, 1976
Appellant Ram Bharosey Agarwal was practising as an advocate in Bulandshahr,
Uttar Pradesh He was engaged by respondent Har Swarup Maheshwari, on behalf of his
daughter Smt.Munni Devi, to pursue her application against her husband Jai Narain under
Section 468 Gr. P.O. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr. The case was
decided in favour of Smt. Munni Devi on September 5, 1963, and a maintenance allowance
was granted to her. When the order was put into execution, Har Swarup Maheshwari engaged
another lawyer to prosecute the execution application. In those proceedings the property of
Jai Narain was attached. His father claimed that the attached property belonged to him, and
4
his application to that effect was alleged to have been filed by the appellant. The first charge
against the appellant was that he was guilty of professional misconduct in accepting a brief
on b half of Jai Narain's father. Jai Narain filed an application for reconsideration of the order
of maintenance, and examined three witnesses. Smt. Munni Devi's father Har Swarup
Maheshwari instituted a case for defamation against those three witnesses and Jai Narain.
Appellant, Ram Bharosey Agarwal was engaged by the accused in those proceedings. The
second allegation against the appellant therefore was that he was guilty of misconduct in
appearing on behalf of the accused in the defamation case. The third allegation was that the
appellant wrote a letter dated August 14, 1967 to Jagdish Narain Agarwal, an advocate of the
Allahabad High Court, to have an appeal which had gone upto the Allahabad High Court
dismissed even though there were no such instructions from his client and the action was
detrimental to the interest of the client.SC were constrained to allow the appeal and to set
aside the appellate order dated December 10, 1974. In the circumstances of the case, SC
would direct that the patties shall pay and bear their own costs.
Conclusion
The judgments discussed above provide a glimpse of the practical application of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the courts of India. All the judgments discussed upholds
the underlying principle of the Code of 1908 which is ubi jus ibi remedium which signifies
that where there is a right, there is always a remedy to safeguard the right when infringed
The Advocate Act holds a great importance in laying down the guidelines and rules that any
person enrolled as an advocate must follow. It also gives grounds for the actions taken against
them if they commit any offence. It keeps the advocates under check and balance rule and
this helps in the smooth functioning of the legal system. Various landmark judgements have
made the ambiguity related with the Advocate Act clear.
Reference
https://blog.ipleaders.in/important-judgments-on-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908-2020-
2021/#High_Court_judgments
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/the-advocates-act-important-sections-and-case-
laws-14189.asp
