LexCHANDER PRAKASH TYAGI versus SHRI BENARSI DAS(DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 1029 CHANDER PRAKASH TYAGI v. SHRIBENARSI DAS(DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 2005) MARCH 17, 2015. A B [T.S. THAKUR AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) C Advocates Act, 1961; Bar Council of India Rules: Part VI; Section II Regulation 33 - Misconduct - Collusion of Advocate. with opponents - Complaint against appellant- Advocate that he having accepted the fee from the D complainant for contesting a case for guardianship of his grandson, also subsequently accepted brief from opponents for filing suit against complainant's grandson - Complaint dismissed by State Bar Council on the ground that the appellant had withdrawn his Vakalatnama from two suits E and that the two proceedings were of different nature - On appeal, Bar Council of India held the appellant guilty of misconduct and suspended his right to practice for one year - Held: The spirit contained in Regulation 33 is that where a lawyer commits breach of his duty in respect of fiduciary F obligation arising out of the relationship between himself and his client, he is guilty of misconduct of conflict of interest - Therefore, appellant was rightly held guilty of misconduct. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: Regulation 33 of Section II of Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules restrains a lawyer from acting 1029 G H 1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A for another client on the ground of conflict of interest as the duty of the lawyer owed to his former client, not to act prejudicially to his interest, does not come to an end with the termination of the earlier case of his client with whom he had shared confidential information. The B basis of Rule 33 is that there is likelihood or possibility of misuse of the instructions given to the lawyer by his former client. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted that the appellant has committed no misconduct as the proceedings in which C the appellant appeared for and against the sarrie client were different in nature, particularly, in view of the fact that the property involved in both the cases was the same. The appellant was given proper opportunity to 0 explain his conduct by the Disciplinary Committee of B.C.I., as there was no violation of proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. [Paras 11, 12, 16] [1036-B, D-F] [1038-G] [1039-A-B] 11.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors. (1979) 1 SCC E 308: 1979 (1) SCR 1054; Noratanmal Chourasia v. M.R. Mulri and Anr. (2004) 5 SCC 689: 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 266; O.P. Shanna and Ors. v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86:2011 (6) SCR 301; Dhanraj F Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakanna (2012) 1 SCC 741:2011 (16) SCR 240 - relied on. Case law reference 1979 (1) SCR 1054 reliedon. Para 13 G 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 266 relied on. Para 13 2011 (6) SCR 301 relied on. Para 14 2011 (16) SCR 240 relied on. Para 15 H CHANDER PRAKASH TYAGI v . .SHRI BENARSI DAS 1031 (DEAD) BY LRS . • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. · A 2581 of 2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2002 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 36 of 2001. B with C. A. No. 2633 of 2005. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sonal Jain for the Appellants. c Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Aviral Shukla, Amit A. Pai, M. Qamaruddin for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 2005), preferred under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is directed against order dated 30.6.2002, passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) whereby the appellant Chander E Prakash Tyagi, Advocate, has been held guilty of violation of Rule 33 of Section II contained in Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules. Consequently, appellant has been suspended from practicing for a period of one year, and directed to pay cost of Rs.2,0001-, out of which Rs.1,0001- F to be paid to the respondent-complainant and rest of the amount is directed to be deposited with the Advocates' Welfare Fund of B.C.I. The appellant is further d.irected to pay cost of Rs.3,0001- vide order passed on review. application, dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee, which G is also challenged through special leave in the connected Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2005. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at ~~h. H 1032 SUPREME CO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.