1.

Jagadish Singh &other [Link] Jagadish singh and Shers were employees of the Central
Board of Educa on,New [Link] were arbitrarily dismissed from service by the Board. They
approached T.C. Sharma an Advocate to file a case against the arbitrary dismissal. They paid
Rs.1400 as fees for the case. Sharma gave a fake case number star ng that he has field the case
before the central Administra ve Tribunal, New Delhi. On verifica on it was found that no such
case has been field. Later they engaged anSher Advocate Mr. Bha to file the case and gS a a
favorable order of reinstatement.

2.

He refused topay the same. So, the complainant filed a pe on against him before the Delhi Bar
Council alleging professional misconduct. Since Sharma failed to appear during the enquiry, the
state Bar Council could nS able to dispose off the case within one year. Hence, the case was
transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India examined the pe oners, but
the respondent was absent. Finally the Bar council of India passed an order holding the
respondent guilty of professional misconduct and awarded the following punishments. 1.
Suspended him from prac ce for a period of 5 years. 2. Directed him to return the Rs.1400/-
with 12%interest per annum. 3. Directed to give Rs.500 as cost to the complainant. Held: Liable
for professional misconduct.

3.

Bablal [Link] JainCita on: BCI TR Case No.115/1986 The allega on of the complainant is that
the respondent a prac cing lawyer, is working as an Editor , Printer and Publisher of a weekly
called “Aaj Ki Janta’’ He is the owner of the press which prints the weekly. It is also alleged that
the respondent did not disclose these facts while applying for enrolment to the State Bar
Council. The respondent denied all the allega ons. He contended that before enrolment, the
job of prin ng and publishing was transferred to his wife and therea er he was working only as
an editor of the said weekly. Since the enquiry was not completed within one year, the case was
transferred to the Bar Council of India. In the enquiry it was found that he enrolled in 1973 and
con nued as the printer, publisher and editor of the weekly ll 1983. Only in 1983 prin ng and
publishing was transferred in the name of his wife.

4.

But, by ageneral power of a orney from his wife the respondent was looking a er the en re
work of the weekly. Based on this findings the Bar Council of India held that the respondent is
guilty of professional misconduct punishable under S.35 of the Advocates Act and passed the
Judgement: 1. He was suspended from prac ce for a period of one year. 2. Suppression of the
fact that he is the owner of the weekly in the enrolment applica on cannot be treated as
professional misconduct punishable under S.35

5.

Baswarooponi [Link] Cita on:BCI DC Appeal No.25/1992 Babulal Soni is the father of
Balswaroop Soni. He filed a complaint against his son alleging professional misconduct before
the Madhya Pradesh Bar [Link] Issues are as follows: a. A criminal case under S.307 I.P.C. is
pending against him. b. While appearing as a defence counsel for one munna in a criminal case
No.125/89 he has introduced his own brother as Dwarha Pradesh and arranged him to stand as
surety for munna. c. He has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1500 deposited in the court in the name of
Babulal Soni in a civil case without his consent. Before the State Bar Council, Babulal Soni
personally appeared and produced certain documentary evidence in support of his case but the
present appellant did nS appear though many chances are given to him. Finally the Bar Council
held that Balswaroop Soni is guilty of professional misconduct and passed an order removing his
name from the Advocates Roll.

6.

Against this orderBalswaroop Soni filed an appeal the Bar Council of India. In the appeal he
denied all the allega ons against him but, failed to produce any documentary evidence in his
support. Regarding the second allega on he took a defence that munna brought one person
and introduced him as Dwarakha Prasad. Believing Munna's Words only he also introduced him
to the court as Dwarakha Prasad. This defence was not accepted by the Bar Council of India
because Balswaroop Soni knows that the person brought by Munna Dwarakha Prasad.
Regarding the third allega on he took the defence that he is also one of the plain ff in the said
case and his father has given power to withdraw that amount of Rs .1500/.But no documentary
evidence insupport of this difference was produced by him. Judgment: A er hearing the par es
the Bar Council of India reduced the punishment and suspended him from prac ce for a period
of 5 years.

7.

[Link] [Link] RajGupta The complainant company is one of the highest producer and
respondent was the Advocate of the company and various cases related to the company was
entrusted with him. In April 1986 NELCO precisions, a company located at Faridabad gave a false
adver sement in the papers that Indure Ltd. is using the parts manufactured by NELCO
precisions. To stop this false adver sement Indure Ltd. instructed the respondent to serve a
legal no ce to NELCO. no ce was sent, but the no ce has not given the desired result.
Therefore, the respondent was instructed to file a case against NELCO. A plaint was prepared
and it was approved by the pe oner company and necessary court fees was also paid to him.
The respondent informed the complainant that he has filed the suit in the Delhi High Court and
gS a stay order. In Fact no suit had been filed. The complainant filed a complaint in the Bar
Council of [Link] professional misconduct against the respondent..

8.

Issues: The respondent fileda very brief counter and failed to give any explana on about the
serious allega on of professional misconduct. He simply prayed that for the same ma er there
is already a criminal case pending against him, so the Bar Council should not proceed with the
complaint. When the pe on was pending before the Bar Council, the criminal case was
disposed off and he was convicted. Since the U.P Bar Council could not complete the enquiry
within one year the pe on was transferred to the Bar Council of India. Judgment: The Bar
Council of India examined the complainant and the respondent and finally came to the
conclusion that the allega ons against the respondent the complainant has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and directed the removal of his name from the roll of Advocates and
prohibited him from prac cing as an Advocate.

9.

Commissioner of CivilSupplies Consumer Protec on Dept. v. Balakrishnan [Link] of

Villupuram has filed a writ pe on No.10589/90 in the Madras High Court praying for the
release of a Van which was seized by the Special Thasildar, Dindivanam on 5- 7-1990. The writ
pe on was dismissed on [Link] respondent [Link] was the Advocate for
[Link] in the writ pe on. A er the dismissal of the writ pe on the respondent
sent the following telegram to the District Revenue Officer, “High Court of Madras in writ
pe on No.10589/1990 filed by Chandrakanth directed the District Revenue Officer to release
the van TAH 4777 with 100 bags of paddy within one week. Do not sell the paddy

10.

Judgment: 1. The orderof the State bar Council was set aside. 2. He was found guilty of
professional misconduct under S.35 of the Act. 3. The act sending wrong telegram misquo ng
the content of the court order is not an act fit for an Advocate and he was reprimanded with
strong words.

11.

Banumurthy [Link] Councilof Andhra Pradesh The appellant was a member of the Andhra
Pradesh Judicial service. When he was working as Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad there
were certain allega ons of corrup on against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and
he was served with an order of compulsory re rement and re red on 30-7-1991. Issues:
Compulsory re rement he applied for resump on of prac ce. The State Bar Council referred the
ma er to the Bar Council of India because he had been found guilty by the departmental
enquiry. The Bar Council of India returned the ma er to the Disciplinary Commi ee of the State
Bar Council found him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from prac ce for a
period of 2 years. Against this order the present appeal has been filed. Judgment: When the
appeal was pending, he was allowed to resume his prac ce from 6-4-1994 by some court order.
Bar Council of India con nued the enquiry and finally held that since 2 years has already lapsed
since his punishment for corrup on charges, he shall resume

12.

[Link] [Link] The appellantlodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
alleging that the respondents applica on in the form of complaints addressed to various
authori es amounts to professional to misconduct. The State Bar Council passed a resolu on
that there is a prima facie case of professional misconduct and it was placed before the
Disciplinary commi ee of the State Bar Council for its adjudica on. Issues: Before the
Disciplinary Commi ee the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the Disciplinary
Commi ee has no jurisdic on in this ma er because there is no connec on between his
standing as lawyer and his representa on to various authori es. The Disciplinary Commi ee of
the State Bar Council also accepted this argument and dismissed complaint without going in to
the merits of the complaint. The Disciplinary Commi ee held that there was no nexus or
proximity in his standing as a lawyer and his to various authori [Link] this order an appeal
was filed before Bar Council of India. In the Bar Council of India it was argued that the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu having passed a resolu on that there is a prima facie case against the
respondent, the Disciplinary Commi ee could not have dismissed the complaint without
hearing it on merits.

13.

Judgment: A er hearing boththe sides the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has passed a resolu on
that there is a prima facie case to be enquired in to by the Disciplinary Commi ee has no power
to consider the ques on of its jurisdic on on the ma er. The decision of the Bar Council of
Tamilnadu is good and valid.

14.

G. M. Hirmaniv. Iswarappa Cita on: The pe oner filed a complaint against the respondent.
[Link] (a prac cing lawyer) in the Bar Council of Karnataka alleging professional
misconduct on the following grounds Issues:. [Link] pe oner filed a par on suit against Grija
Devi and Premadevi ([Link].293/87). The respondent [Link] was the general power of
a orney holder of Smt. Girija Devi and Premadevi and also acted as Advocate for them in the
said case.
15.

2. He misusedhis posi on as an Advocate and dominated the will of Girija Devi and Premadevi
and purchased one por on of the suit property on 30-3-93 from them. On 4-6092 [Link]
took the signature of kirmani in a ten rupee bank bond paper promising to compromise the
par on sui and therea er commi ed the of the same bond paper. 3. During the pendency of
the par on suit [Link] o en visited the house of the complainant in a drunken stage,
through the complainant had asked him nS to visit his house during the pendency of the suit.
Iswarappa has falsely filed a criminal case against the complainant ([Link].12/93) Which was
dismissed a er enquiry. During the enquiry Iswarappa admi ed that he was the general power
of a orney of GirijaDevi and Premadevi and has purchased their property for valuable
considera on and paid the full amount and denied all Sher

16.

Judgment: The Bar Councilof India also dismissed the appeal on the following grounds 1. The
complainant had failed to prove that [Link] took signature of the complainant on a blank
bond paper. 2. He has failed to prove that Iswarappa has purchased the property by misusing his
power of a orney. 3. He failed to prove that Iswarappa acted as an Advocate for Girija Devi
Premadevi in the par on suit. Iswarappa produced evidence that he never acted as council of
pemadevi and Girijadevi in the par on suit and one [Link] was the Advocate for
them in that par on suit. Thus the complainant had failed to establish a case of professional
misconduct against the respondent.

17.

Pawan Kumar Sharmavs Gurdial Singh (AIR 1999 SC 98) Sharma enrolled as an Advocate in the
Punjab G Haryana Bar council in January 1990. At the me of his enrolment his family was doing
taxi business and he himself having 4 taxies in his name. A complaint was filed against him
alleging professional misconduct that he is running taxi business. Since the State Bar Council
could nS able to dispose off the complaint within one year, it was transferred to the Bar Council
Of India. Sharma denied this allega on and showed documents proving that he has sold the
Taxies a er the enrolment. But the Bar Council of India did nS accept this documents and finally
passed an order suspending him from prac ce for one year for professional misconduct on the
ground that he was

18.

Judgement He challenged theorder before the Supreme Court contending that though he had 4
taxies in his name before his enrolment he had sold the taxies a er the enrolment and
discon nued the taxi business. The Supreme accepted the argument and passed the following
orders. 1. Simply because a person is the owner of the taxies, he cannS be treated as directly
doing the business. 2. Rule 47 of the bar Council permits an Advocate to act as a sleeping
partner in any business which is nS inconsistent with any profession.

19.

3. The chargeof professional misconduct is a quasi-criminal charge, so it should be proved

beyond reasonable doubt. In this case the person filed the complaint has failed to prove the
charge beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The appellant has produced documents showing the sale of
the taxies a er enrolment. The respondent has failed to prove that it is untrue. 5. The order of
the Bar Council of India is set aside because professional misconduct is nS approved.

20.

N.S.(Appellant) v. K.V.(Respondent) Theappellant was a Govt. Pleader and the respondent was a
Senior Advocate of 33 years experience in the Madras High Court. On 12-11-1986 when he was
going to the Bar Associa on, the appellant informed him that he made a men on of a case
before a Judge in which respondent was appearing for the opposite party. The respondent told
the appellant that he had not been previously informed about it and that he has no no ce that
the appellant is going to make a men on in the case; so“I will see to it’’. Immediately the
appellant without any jus fica on abused the respondent in a very bad manner using vulgar
words.

21.

Issues: K.V. filed acomplaint before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu. [Link] all the allega ons,
but admi ed that heated exchange of words took place between them. Judgment: A er
examining both the par es, the Disciplinary Commi ee found him guilty of professional
misconduct and suspended him from prac ce for a period of 6 months. N.S. challenged this
order before the Bar Council of India. The main ques on in the appeal is whether the abusive
language used by the appellant against the respondent would amount to professional
misconduct. The Bar Council of India held that it amounts to professional misconduct but it held
that the suspension of N.S. fromprac ce for a period of 6 months is nS necessary and
reprimanded with strong words.

22.

D Gupta v/sRam Murthi 1997, In this case, the deceased named Sri Kishan Das is the owner of
the two-floor built property. The appellant named Vidyawa claimed to be the one and only
legal heir and sister of the deceased Sri Kishan Das. The appellant filed a suit of injunc on
against the respondent named Ram Mur and two other persons asser ng themselves to be
the legal heir of that property by propounding three different wills by sta ng that those wills
were made by the deceased to them.
23.

cont… The above sui s filed by the appellant Vidyawa to restrain the respondent Ram Mur
from trespassing on the property in the high court of Delhi and also the appellant filed the
pe on under sec 276 of the Indian Succession Act,19253 in the district court of Delhi for
obtaining the administra ve authority of the property of the deceased named Sri Kishan Das.
The respondents have filed the pe on under sec 276 of the Indian succession act, 19254 in the
district court of Delhi for ascertaining the dispute present in the property of the deceased
named Sri Kishan Das regarding the inheritance of it. But during the pendency of the suit of
injunc on, the advocate of the appellant named P.D Gupta purchased that disputed property
from Vidyawa and sold it to Suresh Kumar for Rs 3,60,000 and accrued some profit to
Vidyawa and some of it to himself.

24.

Issues: Whether the advocateof the appellant has the right to sell the property during the
pendency of the suit where that property is subjected to the ma er of dispute between the
par es in the court. Does the conduct of the advocate of the appellant comply with professional
ethics? Whether the Bar Council of India will jus fy the conduct of the appellant’s advocate.

25.

Judgement PD Gupta alreadyknew that the tle of that property was in doubt and finally, it had
concluded that the fact that the conduct of PD Gupta conduc ng the case of his client has
commanding status and can also exert influence on his client where such conduct of the
advocate depicts professional misconduct. Hence, the disciplinary commi ee of the Bar Council
of India held that the appellant’s advocate is guilty of professional misconduct and imposed the
punishment of suspension for one year.

26.

Himmat Ali KhanVs Ishwar Prasad Arya. In this case, Ishwar Prasad Arya was an advocate
prac sing at Budaun, in the state of U ar Pradesh, during the trial proceeding he assaulted his
opponent, Mr Reddy Shyam, in the courtroom. A er inves ga on and trial, he was punished
under sec on 307 of IPC for a period of three years imprisonment. Before he could be arrested
in a copy of a le er purpor ng to have been sent by L R Sing deputy secretary, U ar Pradesh
addressed to the district court. Badaun was received in the court of 3 addi onal districts. senior
judge, Badaun who was responsible for execu ng the order of the court. In the said le er it was
stated that the governor has been pleased to suspect the convic on of Ishwar Prasad Arya
under Ar cle 161 of the Indian cons tu on with the immediate effect and un l further order,
he should remain free on receiving the copy of the said le er the proceeding of his arrest
stayed. Therea er it was found that the le er was fraudulent and therefore a warrant for the
arrest was issued and he was arrested and sent to Baduan jail to undergo imprisonment.

27.

A complainant wassent with all these facts to the chairman of the Bar Council, U ar Pradesh.
The commi ee barred him from prac sing as an advocate for a period of two years from the
date of the service of the order on the appeal to the Bar Council of India the decision of the Bar
Council of U ar Pradesh was held. Whether the punishment given by the state bar council of
U ar Pradesh and the bar council of India was adequate or not? The Hon’ble bench of the
supreme court of India held: 1. The punishment given by the state bar council at the bar council
of India is to be set aside 2. Appellant’s name to be removed from the state bar council, U ar
Pradesh and the role of advocates from the act of gross misconduct.