AN ADVOCATE versus B.B. HARADARA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 29-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

;~'·' 
;:-~: 
., 
~,l.~~!lt-
:;: 
.-~ 
~,.·,' ' 
AN ADVOCATE 
v. 
B.B. HARADARA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AN.D B.C. ·RAY, JJ.] 
Advocate's Act-Sec. 38-Professional misconduct standard of 
proof-Required of-Section 35-Procedure to be followed at the 
inquiry by Bar Council. 
The appellant is an Advocate. Gautam Chand was one of his old 
· clients. The_ com_plainant-Re_sp_ondent No. _l engag~d_ the ~P.pellant on. 
- 'being introduced by Gantam Chand to file a Suit against -Shri 
~. Anantaraju for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,098_with Court costs and 
interest in the Court of City Civil Judge at Bangalore. The appellant 
passed on the papers to his junior advocate to file the Suit which he did. 
The complainant's allegation is that the matter in dispute in the suit had 
not been sett.led at all and the appellant without the knowledge and 
without his instructions filed a memo in the Court to the effect that the 
matter has been settled out of Court and accordingly got the suit dismis-
sed and also received half of the institution court fee; about which the 
complainant was not aware, nor was he informed by the appellant. The 
complainant's allegation is that he was not informed about the dates of 
hearing of the suit; when inquired he was simply told that the case is 
posted for filing written-statement where his presence was not neces-
sary. When nothing was heard by the complainant from the appellant 
about the progress of his suit, he personally made inquiries and came to 
learn to his great surprise that the suit in question had in fact been 
withdrawn as settled out of Court. 
The version of the appellant Advocate is that Gautam Ch-.nd, his 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
-old Client, -had· business 
ifea1iD.~s with iiie pJaintirls; Haraliara 
(Complainant) and the defendant Anantaraju. Anantaraju had also. 
executed an agreement on 9.8.80 to sell his house property to Gautam 
Chand. He received earnest money amounting to Rs.35,000 from 
G 
Gautam Chand• Anantaraju however did not execute the sale deed 
within the specified time. Gautam Chand approached the appellant for 
legal advice. The appellant caused the issue of notice to Anantaraju 
calling upon him to execute the sale deed. A notice was also issued on 
behalf of the complainant calling upon the defendant Anantaraju 
demanding certain amounts due on 3 self bearer cheques amounting to· 
H 
361 
A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
F 
0 
H 
362, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
Rs.30,098 issued by him in course of their mutual transactions. 
Gautam Cband and the complainant were friends having no 
conflict of interests Gautam Chand instructed the appellant and his 
junior Ashok that he was in possession of the said cheques issued by 
Anantaraju and that no amount was actually due from Anantaraju to 
Haradara Complainant. Gautam Chand desired Anantaraju to execute 
the sale deed. Anantaraju executed the sale deed on 27.11.81 in favour 
of Gautam Chand, even though an order of attachment before judg-
ment in respect of the said property was in existence. Consequent on the 
execution of the sale deed, the object of the suit was achieved. The 
complainant did not at any time object. In this back ground, the appel-
lant had reasons to believe the information re: settlement of dispute 
conveyed by the three together on 9.12.81. Acting on the said informa-
tion, the appellant asked Ashok his erstwhile junior to take steps to 
withdraw the suit, which he did on 10.12.81 as per instructions received 
from the appellant noted on the docket of the brief. 
' The State Bar Council, called for the comments of the appellant 
relating to the complaint. No charge was framed s.pecifying the nature 
and content of the professional misconduct attributed to the appellant. 
Nor were any issues framed or prints for determination formulated. 
Instead thereof the Bar Council proceeded to record evidence. As the 
case could not be concluded within the time limit, the matter came to be 
transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India 
addressed itself to the three questions, viz. 
(i) Whether the complainant was the person who entrusted the 
brief' to the appellant and whether the brief was entrusted by the 
complainant to the appellant? 
(ii) Whether report of settlement was made without instructions 
or knowledge of the complainant? 
(iii) Who was responsible for reporting settlement and instructions 
ol' the cqmplainant? 
-
· 
· · 
· 
The Disciplinary Committee of the Ba

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.