LexIN RE: SHRI 'M', AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. versus -
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS Sll which that Tribunal should have passed in this case, namely, that permission be granted to the appellant to discharge ninety six temporary workmen. In the circumstances of this case, we think that the parties must bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed. IN RE: SHRI 'M', AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. [JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and B. P. SINHA, JJ.] Professional Misconduct-Appropriation by Advocate on record of Surpfos Paper Book Cost towards fees-Legality-Standard of professional conduct-Trustee-Lien-Procedure-Supreme Court R1iles, 1950, (as amended), 0. IV, r .. 80. Facts. Shri 'M', while an Agent of the Supreme Court, filed a. criminal appeal and later on became an Advocate on record under the. new rules of tl)e Court which came into force on January 26, 1954. He received a sum of Rs. 750 from his client for costs of printing of the Paper Book and deposited the same in the Punjab High Court from whose decision the appeal a.rose. There was 11 sur· plus of Rs. ~J42-1-9 pies. He withdrew tbe amount without inform· ing his client, made no demand of any fees a.s being due to him, did not lodge any bill for taxation and appropriated the sum towards his a.Ueged fses. Tbe client came to know of the withdrawal from _. the Punjab High Court and when he confronted Shri 'M' with the letter from that court Shri 'M', who had denied the receipt of the surplus amount, could no longer do so and stated that he was en· titled to a reasonable fee, had a lien therefor a.nd had appropriated the a.mount. Held, that on the facts found the Advocate wa.s guilty of profes- sional misconduct and must be suspended from practice. The high standard of professional conduct contemplated by rule 30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules virtually made a.n Ad- voca.te a. trustee for his•client in respect of a.11 his moneys which ca.me into his .hands except what was specifically ear-marked for fees. Any lien which he might have under the .rules would not justify the appropriation of any such money towards his fees with- out the express or implied consent of the client or an order of Court. Nor could a.n Advocate, in absence of a. prior settlement of fees, constitute himself a judge in his own ca.use a.nd determine what 1956 Rohtas Industries lid. v. Brijnat1dan Pandey S. K. Das}. 1956 October 17. 1956 Jn re: Shri 'M', an Ad'C10cate of th~ Supreme Court of India 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] would be reasonable fees payable to him. It might be that in certain circumstances he was entitled to exercise a. lien, but he had to give reasonoble intimation both of the fact of moneys having come into his hands and of the exercise of his lien over them until his account was settled. The principle of trusteeship applied with greater force where the surplus money1 as in the instant ca.se, was meant for a. specific purpose, it being well settled that in respect• of such a money there could be no lien either under the common law or the statute. That in a case such as the present, the standard applicable to an Agent under rules 31 and 32 of the old rules would be ·the same. In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, ([1955) 1 S.C.R. 490), followed. Held further, that as the Supreme Court Rules did not specifi- ca~ly prescribe any procedure for oases coming under r. 30 of 0. IV of the Rules, in the instant case the procedure substantially as in a warrant case under s. 251-A (as amended) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be adopted as far as possible subject to such just and expedient modifications as accorded with the rules of natural justice. 'DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION. In the matter of summons under Order 4, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended). Purshottam Tricumdas, B. B. Tawakley, G. G. Mathur and K. P. Gupta, for the Advocate. M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and B. Sen Assisting the Court. 1956. October 17. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J.-These proceedings before us arise out of a summons under Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950, (as amended) issued to Shri 'M', who was originally an Agent of this Court and became an "Advocate on recQrd" under the new rules of this Court which came into force on January 26, 1954. The summons issued calls upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be ta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.