case laws.pdf professional ethics and legal

case law for professional ethics

1. Jagadish Singh & other v.T.C.Sharma
Jagadish singh and Shers were employees of the Central Board of
Education,New Delhi.They 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 starting that he has field the case
before the central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. On verification it
was found that no such case has been field. Later they engaged anSher
Advocate Mr. Bhati to file the case and gS a a favorable order of
reinstatement.

2. He refused to pay the same. So, the complainant filed a petition 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 petitioners, 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 practice 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 v.Subash Jain Citation: BCI TR Case No.115/1986
The allegation of the complainant is that the respondent a practicing 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 allegations. He contended that before enrolment, the
job of printing and publishing was transferred to his wife and thereafter 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
continued as the printer, publisher and editor of the weekly till 1983. Only in 1983
printing and publishing was transferred in the name of his wife.

4. But, by a general power of attorney from his wife the respondent was
looking after the entire 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 practice for a period of one year.
2. Suppression of the fact that he is the owner of the weekly in the
enrolment application cannot be treated as professional misconduct
punishable under S.35

5. Baswarooponi v.Babulalsoni Citation: 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 Council.The
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 order Balswaroop Soni filed an appeal the Bar Council of India.
In the appeal he denied all the allegations against him but, failed to produce
any documentary evidence in his support. Regarding the second allegation
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 allegation he took the defence that he is also
one of the plaintiff 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:
After hearing the parties the Bar Council of India reduced the punishment
and suspended him from practice for a period of 5 years.

7. 4.Indure Ltd.v.Deo Raj Gupta
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
advertisement in the papers that Indure Ltd. is using the parts manufactured by NELCO
precisions.
To stop this false advertisement Indure Ltd. instructed the respondent to serve a legal
notice to NELCO. notice was sent, but the notice 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 petitioner 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 U.P.alleging professional
misconduct against the respondent..

8. Issues:
The respondent filed a very brief counter and failed to give any explanation
about the serious allegation of professional misconduct. He simply prayed that
for the same matter there is already a criminal case pending against him, so the
Bar Council should not proceed with the complaint. When the petition 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 petition 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 allegations 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
practicing as an Advocate.

9. Commissioner of Civil Supplies Consumer Protection Dept. v.
Balakrishnan
Mr.Chandrakanth of Villupuram has filed a writ petition 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 petition was dismissed on 11-7-1990.The respondent Mr.V.Balakrishnan
was the Advocate for Mr.Chandrakanth in the writ petition. After the dismissal of the
writ petition the respondent sent the following telegram to the District Revenue
Officer, “High Court of Madras in writ petition 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 order of 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 misquoting the content of the court order
is not an act fit for an Advocate and he was reprimanded with strong
words.

11. Banumurthy v.Bar Council of 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 allegations of
corruption against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and he was served
with an order of compulsory retirement and retired on 30-7-1991.
Issues:
Compulsory retirement he applied for resumption of practice. The State Bar Council
referred the matter to the Bar Council of India because he had been found guilty by the
departmental enquiry. The Bar Council of India returned the matter to the Disciplinary
Committee of the State Bar Council found him guilty of professional misconduct and
suspended him from practice 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 practice from 6-4-1994 by
some court order. Bar Council of India continued the enquiry and finally held that since
2 years has already lapsed since his punishment for corruption charges, he shall resume
his practice

12. Dr.D.V.P.Raja v.D.Jayabalan

The appellant lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu alleging that the respondents
application in the form of complaints addressed to various authorities amounts to professional to
misconduct. The State Bar Council passed a resolution that there is a prima facie case of
professional misconduct and it was placed before the Disciplinary committee of the State Bar
Council for its adjudication.
Issues:
Before the Disciplinary Committee the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the Disciplinary
Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter because there is no connection between his standing
as lawyer and his representation to various authorities. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar
Council also accepted this argument and dismissed complaint without going in to the merits of the
complaint.
The Disciplinary Committee held that there was no nexus or proximity in his standing as a lawyer and
his to various authorities.Against 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 resolution that
there is a prima facie case against the respondent, the Disciplinary Committee could not have
dismissed the complaint without hearing it on merits.

13. Judgment:
After hearing both the sides the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has passed
a resolution that there is a prima facie case to be enquired in to by the
Disciplinary Committee has no power to consider the question of its
jurisdiction on the matter.
The decision of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu is good and valid.

14. G. M. Hirmani v. Iswarappa Citation:
The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent. Mr.Iswarapa (a
practicing lawyer) in the Bar Council of Karnataka alleging professional
misconduct on the following grounds
Issues:.
1.The petitioner filed a partition suit against Grija Devi and Premadevi
(O.S.No.293/87). The respondent Mr.Iswarappa was the general power of
attorney holder of Smt. Girija Devi and Premadevi and also acted as Advocate
for them in the said case.

15. 2. He misused his position as an Advocate and dominated the will of
Girija Devi and Premadevi and purchased one portion of the suit property
on 30-3-93 from them.
On 4-6092 Mr.Iswarappa took the signature of kirmani in a ten rupee bank
bond paper promising to compromise the partition sui and thereafter
committed theft of the same bond paper.

3. During the pendency of the partition suit Mr.Iswarappa often 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
(C.C.No.12/93) Which was dismissed after enquiry.

During the enquiry Iswarappa admitted that he was the general power of
attorney of GirijaDevi and Premadevi and has purchased their property for
valuable consideration and paid the full amount and denied all Sher
allegations.

16. Judgment:
The Bar Council of India also dismissed the appeal on the following grounds
1.The complainant had failed to prove that Mr.Iswarappa 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 attorney.
3.He failed to prove that Iswarappa acted as an Advocate for Girija Devi
Premadevi in the partition suit. Iswarappa produced evidence that he never
acted as council of pemadevi and Girijadevi in the partition suit and one
Mr.AtchuthaGiri was the Advocate for them in that partition suit. Thus the
complainant had failed to establish a case of professional misconduct against
the respondent.

17. Pawan Kumar Sharma vs Gurdial Singh (AIR 1999 SC 98)
Sharma enrolled as an Advocate in the Punjab G Haryana Bar council in
January 1990. At the time 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 allegation and showed documents proving that he has
sold the Taxies after the enrolment. But the Bar Council of India did nS
accept this documents and finally passed an order suspending him from
practice for one year for professional misconduct on the ground that he was
running a taxi business after enrolment.

18. Judgement
He challenged the order before the Supreme Court contending that though
he had 4 taxies in his name before his enrolment he had sold the taxies after
the enrolment and discontinued 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 charge of 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 after
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)
The appellant 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 Association, the appellant informed him that he made a
mention 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 notice that the appellant is going to make a mention
in the case; so“I will see to it’’. Immediately the appellant without any
justification abused the respondent in a very bad manner using vulgar words.

21. Issues:
K.V. filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu. N.S.denied all the
allegations, but admitted that heated exchange of words took place between them.
Judgment:
After examining both the parties, the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 6 months. N.S.
challenged this order before the Bar Council of India. The main question 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. frompractice for a period
of 6 months is nS necessary and reprimanded with strong words.

22. D Gupta v/s Ram Murthi 1997,
In this case, the deceased named Sri Kishan Das is the owner of the
two-floor built property. The appellant named Vidyawati claimed to be the
one and only legal heir and sister of the deceased Sri Kishan Das. The
appellant filed a suit of injunction against the respondent named Ram Murti
and two other persons asserting themselves to be the legal heir of that
property by propounding three different wills by stating that those wills were
made by the deceased to them.

23. cont…
The above suit is filed by the appellant Vidyawati to restrain the respondent Ram
Murti from trespassing on the property in the high court of Delhi and also the
appellant filed the petition under sec 276 of the Indian Succession Act,19253 in
the district court of Delhi for obtaining the administrative authority of the property
of the deceased named Sri Kishan Das.
The respondents have filed the petition 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 injunction, the advocate of the appellant
named P.D Gupta purchased that disputed property from Vidyawati and sold it to
Suresh Kumar for Rs 3,60,000 and accrued some profit to Vidyawati and some
of it to himself.

24. Issues:
Whether the advocate of the appellant has the right to sell the property
during the
pendency of the suit where that property is subjected to the matter of
dispute between
the parties in the court.
Does the conduct of the advocate of the appellant comply with
professional ethics?
Whether the Bar Council of India will justify the conduct of the appellant’s
advocate.

25. Judgement
PD Gupta already knew that the title of that property was in doubt and
finally, it had concluded that the fact that the conduct of PD Gupta
conducting 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 committee 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 Khan Vs Ishwar Prasad Arya.
In this case, Ishwar Prasad Arya was an advocate practising at Budaun, in the state of Uttar Pradesh,
during the trial proceeding he assaulted his opponent, Mr Reddy Shyam, in the courtroom. After
investigation and trial, he was punished under section 307 of IPC for a period of three years
imprisonment. Before he could be arrested in a copy of a letter purporting to have been sent by L R Sing
deputy secretary, Uttar Pradesh addressed to the district court. Badaun was received in the court of 3
additional districts. senior judge, Badaun who was responsible for executing the order of the court.

In the said letter it was stated that the governor has been pleased to suspect the conviction of Ishwar
Prasad Arya under Article 161 of the Indian constitution with the immediate effect and until further order,
he should remain free on receiving the copy of the said letter the proceeding of his arrest stayed.
Thereafter it was found that the letter 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 was sent with all these facts to the chairman of the Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh. The
committee barred him from practising 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
Uttar Pradesh was held.

Whether the punishment given by the state bar council of Uttar 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, Uttar Pradesh and the role of
advocates from the act of gross misconduct.