LexD.P. CHADHA versus TRIYUGL NARAIN MISHRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ D.P. CHADHA v. TRIYUGl NARAIN MISHRA AND ORS. DECEMBER 5, 2000 [DR. A.S. ANAND. CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] A B Advocates Act, 1961- Sections 37 and 38- Professional Misconduct. meaning- Advocate, engaged by complainant in an ejectment suit, utilised signed blank vakalatnarna and blank paper in a compromise petition to the C detrimental to the interest of the complainant without his knowledge- Decree passed against the complainant without personal presence of complainant-State Bar Council and Bar Council of fndia holding advocate guilty of professional misconduct Held, findings concurred with-Advocate guilty of profesoional mis-conduct-.. ·Civil Procedure Code, 1908- --Order 2 3 D Rule 3. Power of Bar Council of India- Enhancement of Punishment Ji-om 5 years to JO years-Principles of Natural Justice-Held, enhancement of punishment-Not be done without putting the guilty advocate on notice and allowing an opportunity of being heard to the person aggrieved E Judicial Orders--Record of proceedings made by Court is sacrosanct- Any one disputing correctness of facts stated therein must move the same court for rectification. Advocate· -Duty to Court-Must not drag in doubt a settled or non- F controversial point of law-Misleading or deceiving Court to cause damage to own clients interest is gravest professional misconduct. Appellant-advocate was engaged by respondent-complainant, who was running a school with 2000 students in suit-premises, for defending him in a ejectment suit filed by landlord:company before Trial Court. While the G proceedings in the suit was going on in the Trial Court, the complainant was busy contesting some election. The appellant utilised a blank vakalatnama and blank paper, which were signed by the compl;iinant and given to the appellant for court proceedings, in fabricating a compromise petition without the knowledge of the complainant. The blank vakalatnama was utilised in H 345 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000\ SllPP. 5 S.C.R. A engaging another Advocate A to act on behalf of the complainant for verification of compromise. The blank paper was utilised in preparing a receipt purportedly executed by complainant acknowledging receipt of Rs. 5 lacs by way of damages from landlord for vacating the suit-premises. The Trial Court directed personal presence of the parties for verification of the compromise. The Advocate for landlord, instead, filed an appeal before B Appellate Court against the order of the Trial Court challenging personal presence of the parties. Notice was issued to the complainant through the Advocate A, who filed a memo of appearance and not a vakalatnama for the complainant. The complainant was not informed of the court proceedings. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and the matter C was remanded back to the Trial Court. The Trial Court again directed personal appearance of the parties for verification of compromise. The appellant contended before the Trial Court that the personal presence of the complainant is not required and that the presence of the Advocate was enough for verification of compromise. The Trial Court, by a detailed order and issuing a notice, directed personal presence of the complainant on the next date of hearing. D The Advocate for landlord again filed an appeal before the Appellate Court against the order of the Trail Court challenging personal appearance of the parties. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the Trial Court to pass decree in terms of compromise without insisting on personal appearance of parties. The Trial Court passed a decree in terms of compromise E detrimental to the complainant in the presence of the advocates of landlord and complainant. The decree directed the suit premises to be vacated by the complainant. A complaint was made to State Council for professional miscondurt by the appellant who had colluded with other Advocates and the landlord to bring F compromise without the knowledge of the complainant. The appellant was held guilty of professional misconduct by the State Bar Council and punished with suspension from practice for a period of 5 years. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before Bar Council of India. The Bar Council not only dismissed the appeal but also enhanced the G punishment of appellant to I 0 years. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.