D.S. DALAL versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS,

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 18-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
__ D.S. DALAL 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS, 
MARCH 18, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961 : Section 3&-Appeal against order of Disciplinary 
Committee of Bar Council of lndicr-Proceedings against Advocates-Find-
ings--Whether proper. 
Respondent-Bank lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of 
Delhi against the appellant-Advocate, alleging that the appellant and two 
othe" Advocates of. the M/s. Singh and Company, (a Firm of Advocates 
and solicitors) were guilty of serious professional misconduct, as they 
faileil to discharge their. professional duties and responsibilities entrusted 
D to them. 
E 
F 
The case of the Bank was that in 1975, the Bank engaged the Firm 
to file a recovery suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,12,164.10 from M/s. Delhi 
Floo1ring (P) Ltd. and handed over the case-file containing original and 
valuable documents. 
The Firm submitted a bill for filing the recovery suit which included 
the professional fees and other miscellaneous charges. On 15.11.1975 the 
Bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,475 which included 1/3rd of the professional fee 
and the miscellaneous charges. It did not inform the Bank whether the 
suit was filed or not. 
On 5.12.1975 the Bank wrote a letter to the Firm to send a copy of 
the plaint before 8.12.1975 or the Bank would be compelled to withdraw 
the case from the Firm. 
G 
On 15.12.1975, one of the partner of the firm informed the Bank the 
suit was filed on 15.12.1975 in the High Court. Thereafter the Bank was 
kept in the dark about the fate of the case. Hence the Bank engaged the 
services of one Mr. Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what 
happened to the suit. 
H 
On 2.3.1977, the Bank was informed by Mr. Arora, Advocate that 
488 
-
.. 
D.S. DALAL v. STAIB BANK OF lNDIA 
489 
suit was filed on 15.12.1975 in the High Court and on 31.1.1976, it ivas A 
returned- by the Original Branch to the Registry with objections. Mr. 
Aror.a, Advocate further informed the Bank on 31.3.1977 that the entire · 
smt paper book was returned to Mr. Singh, Advocate of the Firm on 
27.7.1976 for removing the objections and thereafter the suit was not 
1refile4. 
The respondent-Bank, therefore, claimed before the Bar Council of 
Delhi that the appella~t and his associates misappropriated the money 
paid to them for court fee, miscellaneous expenses and one-third of the 
professional fee. 
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred 
the case of the Bar Council of India, as the case was pending for more 
B 
c 
~ 
than one year. 
The Bar Council oflndia issued notices returnable on 2.11.1980. The 
appellant and his associates were not present on that date. Therefore D 
fresh notices were issued for 20.12.1980. The appellant did not present on 
20.12.1980 and ex parte proceedings were ordered. The case was posted for 
23.1.1981 for the evidence of the complainant. 
On 23.1.1981 the appellant moved an application for setting aside E 
,f . the ex parte order dated 20.12.1980, j:Vhich was allowed and the case was 
- adjourned to 27.2.1981. The case was adjourned from time to time and 
finally fixed for evidence on 22.8.1981. On 22.8.1981, the appellant's ap-
plication for adjournment was rejected. The evidence was concluded, ar· 
guments were heard and the order was reserved. 
(The complainant had given up its case against one Ms. V.Singh, 
/ 
Advocate an associate of the appellant, and the Bar Council of India did 
not proceed against her. One Mr. B.Singh, Advocate the other associate of 
the appellant, was also proceeded against. Notice to him was returned with 
the postal endorsement "refused" and ex parte proceeding were ordered.) 
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that 
the case against the appellant and his associate was proved beyond 
reasonable doubt. Their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates 
of the Bar Council of Delhi and the Sanads granted to them were ordered 
F 
G 
to be withdrawn. 
H 
.. 
«190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
I 
! 
A 
The appellant filed the appeal before this Court, while his associate, 
r 
filed a review petition before the Bar Council of India, which was still 
pending, The Bar Conncil of India granted him stay of the order dated 
24.l0.1981 in the review proceeding. 
B 
The appellant contended that the suit was filed by the appellant on 
15.12.11975 but the record of the suit file was misplaced/lost by the 
Registry of the High Court; that by his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.