IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE versus .

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 22-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 212 
A 
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 
(SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 312 of 2013) 
B 
AUGUST 22, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966: 
0. 4, r. BA read with r. 6 - Advocate on Record -
Misconduct - AOR lending his signatures in large number of 
C cases, but not appearing in Court, inspite of Court's directions 
- Show cause notice issued - AOR tendered absolute and 
unconditional apology and promised not to repeat such 
misconduct - Held: Rule BA enables the Court to deal with a 
situation where an AOR commits misconduct or he/she 
D conducts himself/herself in a manner unbecoming of an AOR 
-- The Court is competent to proceed against an AOR suo 
motu, without any complaint from any person, if prima facie it 
is of the opinion that the AOR is guilty of misconduct or of 
conduct unbecoming of an AOR "- Though the conduct of the 
noticee-AOR, has been reprehensible and not worth 
E pardoning, considering the fact and circumstances, his 
conduct is censured and he is warned not to behave in future 
in such manner -- Court shall examine his conduct for one 
year and, if no improvement is found, may initiate the 
proceedings again. 
F 
0.4, "· 4 and 6 - Advocate-on-Record - Role and duty -
Misconduct - AsOR lending their signatures in large number 
of cases and not appearing in Court - Held: The institution of 
AsOR is "to facilitate the working of the Court, as contained in 
G 0.4. r. 6. -- It entitles an AOR to act, plead, conduct and 
prosecute before the Court in respect of all matters filed by 
him -- To act means to file an appearance or any pleading 
or any application in the Court and such a task has been 
, entrusted solely upon an AOR and no other advocate can file 
H 
212 
IN RE: RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL, ADVOCATE 213 
an appearance or act for the party without his authorization -
A 
- In case an AOR is only lending his signatures without taking 
any responsibility for conducting the case, the very purpose 
of having the institution of AsOR stands defeated -- In such a 
fact-situation, lending of signatures for consideration would 
amount to misconduct of his duty towards Court and such an 
B 
attitude tantamounts to cruelty in the most crude form towards 
the innocent litigant -- Conduct of such an AOR i~ 
unbecoming of an AOR - An AOR is the source of lawful 
recognition through whom the litigant is represented - As per 
the Rules, no unauthorised person can deal with the Registry c 
and it must strictly adhere to the Rules. 
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: 
Ejusdem generis - Term, 'otherwise' occurring in r.BA of 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Held: Should be construed as 
D 
ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean some kind 
of legal obligation or some transaction enforceable in law. 
During the course of hearing of application for 
setting aside then order dismissing a civil appeal in 
default, the Court asked the counsel appearing for the 
applicant to call for the Advocate-on-Record concerned, 
but the latter was stated to have refused to come to the 
Court. It was pointed out that the said AOR had filed an 
extremely large number of cases in Supreme Court, but 
he never appeared in those cases. The application was 
ultimately dismissed. However, the Court issued a show 
cause notice to the said AOR as to why his name should 
E 
F 
not be removed from the register of AsOR, as his conduct 
was 'unbecoming' of an AOR. The Court took note of the 
practice that some AsOR were lending their signatures 
G 
for consideration and taking no responsibility for the 
matter and never appeared in Court. The Court requested 
the Association of AsOR through its President and 
Secretary to assist it in dealing with the situation. 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C:R. 
A 
Closing the matter for the time being, the Court 
Held: 1.1 Rule SA of Order IV of the Supreme Court 
Rules, 1966 enables this Court to deal with a situation 
where an AOR commits misconduct or he/she conducts 
8 himself/herself in a manner unbecoming of an AOR. This 
Court is competent to proceed against an AOR suo motu, 
if prima facie it is of the opinion that an AOR is guilty of 
misconduct or of conduct unbecoming of an AOR. The 
term "otherwise" contained in r.8-A should be construed 
as ejesdum generis and must be interpreted to mean 
C some kind of legal obligation or some transaction 
enforceable in law. [para 5,7 and 8) [221-C-D; 222-B-D] 
Vijay Dhanji Chaudhary v. Suha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.