2014 (4) TMI 979 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Professional Misconduct Finding, Advocates Integrity in Legal Profession

Dhanraj Singh Choudahry Versus Nathulal Vishwakarma

The Supreme Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct against the advocate appellant, emphasizing the importance of integrity in the legal ... Suspension from practice - professional mis-conduct - Cross appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Held that:- In the cross-appeal preferred by the advocate appellant, it is stated that being aggrieved by the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, the cross-appeal is being preferred by the respondent therein (advocate appellant herein). As a matter of law, Section 37 of the 1961 Act does not contemplate cross-appeal. The Code of Civil Procedure has not been made applicable as it is to the proceedings before the disciplinary committee. Section 42 of the 1961 Act makes applicable provisions of the Code in respect of matters contained therein while providing that the disciplinary committee of a Bar Council shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court. The matters contained in Section 42 do not refer to the appeals. Thus, the provisions contained in Order 41 of the Code, including Rule 22 thereof, have no applicability to the proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council has considered the entire material, including the evidence of the complainant and the advocate appellant and arrived at the finding that the advocate appellant was guilty of professional mis-conduct for having attested the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 containing a statement that the shop on the western side of the saleable property in occupation of the complainant has already been transferred to the advocate appellant by giving him ownership right. The attestation of the sale deed containing the above statement, which was apparently false to the knowledge of advocate appellant, amounted to professional mis- conduct. The vendor-Jitender Singh Bakna and his father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna were the clients of the advocate appellant. As a matter of fact, the advocate appellant had filed a suit on behalf of the vendor against the complainant seeking his eviction from the premises for which the statement was made in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 that the said premises in occupation of the complainant has been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant. From the material on record the professional mis-conduct of the advocate appellant is clearly established and the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, cannot be said to have committed any error in holding him guilty of the professional mis-conduct. Having held that, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council awarded him punishment of reprimand. Against the inadequate punishment awarded to the advocate appellant for the proved professional mis-conduct, the complainant preferred appeal. In that appeal, notice was issued to the advocate appellant and in response thereto, he did appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on October 30, 2004 and was fully heard. The requirement of the proviso appended to Section 37(2) of the 1961 is, thus, fully met. Advocate appellant is suspended from practice for a period of three months effective from today the above objectives would be met - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Allegation of professional misconduct against the advocate appellant.2. Adequacy of the punishment awarded by the State Bar Council.3. Maintainability of the cross-appeal filed by the advocate appellant.4. Appropriate punishment for the advocate appellant's professional misconduct.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Professional Misconduct Against the Advocate Appellant:The advocate appellant was accused of professional misconduct based on a complaint by the respondent, who alleged that in a sale deed dated November 3, 1999, attested by the advocate appellant, a false statement was made regarding the transfer of a shop to the advocate appellant. This shop was already under litigation for specific performance of an agreement dated November 15, 1991, between the complainant and the vendor's father. The advocate appellant had also filed an eviction suit on behalf of the vendor against the complainant, showing the complainant as a tenant.2. Adequacy of the Punishment Awarded by the State Bar Council:The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found the advocate appellant guilty of professional misconduct and awarded him a punishment of reprimand. The complainant, dissatisfied with the reprimand, appealed to the Bar Council of India for enhancement of the punishment. The Bar Council of India modified the punishment to suspension from practice for one year.3. Maintainability of the Cross-Appeal Filed by the Advocate Appellant:The advocate appellant filed a cross-appeal against the order of the State Bar Council. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the cross-appeal as not maintainable, stating that Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, does not contemplate cross-appeals and that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including Order 41 Rule 22, is not applicable to disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act. Furthermore, the cross-appeal was time-barred, having been filed more than two years after the State Bar Council's order without any application for condonation of delay.4. Appropriate Punishment for the Advocate Appellant's Professional Misconduct:The Supreme Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct against the advocate appellant, noting that the false statement in the sale deed was made with the advocate appellant's knowledge and was unethical. The Court emphasized the nobility of the legal profession and the need for advocates to maintain high standards of integrity and honesty. Despite the advocate appellant's plea for leniency due to health issues and the age of the incident, the Court rejected the applications for settlement between the advocate appellant and the complainant, stating that professional misconduct requires adequate punishment. The Court modified the suspension period to three months, effective from the date of the order, balancing deterrence and correction.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals with a modification in the punishment, reducing the suspension period to three months. The Registry was directed to send copies of the order to the State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, and the Bar Council of India.