IN THE MATTER OF P. AN ADVOCATE versus .

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 23-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA

Judgment (excerpt)

1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
697 
IN THE JlvlATTER OF P. AN ADVOCATE 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH and 
j. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
· Advocate-Profe8sional Misconduct-Failure to file Bill of 
Co•ts in time-GrOBB negligence, when amounts ta professional 
misconduct-8'1!ior Adrocate receiving fte.• dir.ctly from client-
Propriety of-Supreme Court R·ule8, 0. IV-A. 
Mr. P, an Advocate-on·re<:ord of the Supreme pourt, 
acted for Respondent No. 2 (b) in the appeal and Mr. J, a 
Senior Advocate, was briefed to lead him at the hearing. The 
client had paid R•. 500/- to Mr. P. and Mr.J was paid Rs.1,000/-
direct by the client. The appedl was dismissed with costs in 
favour of Respondrnt No. 2 (b). Though the client paid him 
the expenses asked for l\lr. P did not lodge the Bill of Costs 
within the time allowed but filed h about IO months beyond 
time. A• the Bill of C,sts was not accompanied by an appli· 
cation for condonation of delay, it was returned. Mr. P took 
no step• thereafter but, a year later he asked for and received 
another sum of Rs. 200/.ftom his client. The client repeatedly 
wro\e to the Advocate enquiring about the Bill of C0:1ts but 
received no reply.· The client applied for discharging the 
Advocate and for condonation of delay in filing the Bill of 
Costs, both"of which·prayers were granted. The Chief Ju•tice 
constituted a tribunal under 0. IV-A, r. 18, Supreme Court 
Rules to enquire into the cond,ict of Mr. P. 
The Tribunal 
held that the Advocate acted with gross-negligence and that 
his conduct amounted to professional or other misconduct 
within the meaning of 0. IV-A. Thereafter the matter was 
. placed before the Court for final di•posal 
Hekl, that the Advocate was guilty of professional 
misconduct and his name should be removed from the rolls for 
five years. 
The Advocate was guilty of causing gross delay in filing 
the Bill of Costs for which there was no acceptable explanation. 
Though mere negligence or error of judgment did not amount 
to professional misconduct, different considerations arose where 
the negligence of the Advocate was gross. Sometimes, Courts 
examine whether the gross negligence involves moral turpitude 
or delinquency. Conduct which is contrary to honesty, or opposed 
1963 
Janumy, 23. 
1963 
In tlu MaJtw of 
,, • an Ad!Jo<ou 
Gajmibagat!Mt, I 1 
6!18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
to good morals or is unethical involve. moral turpitude. An un-
~uly narrow view of th~ concept of moral turpitude or delinquency 
IS not to be taken and It has to be seen whether by his conduct 
the Advocate has rendered himse1f unworthy to be a member 
of the legal profession. The Tribunal, which consisted of three 
members of the legal profession, was a good judge of what 
was professional misconduct as an Advocate. 
In re A Vakil, (1925) l.L.R. 49 Mad. 523, In the mailer 
of an AdvocaU of Agra, l.L.R. 194-0 All. 386, Alliruon v. 
Ge1U!ral Council of .lledical Eduroiion a,.ti Regi.•lration, (189+) 
I Q. 'I. 750, In re A Solicilor Ex parte the Law Society. ( 1912) I 
K.ll. 302, In the mailer of an Advocale, (1936) l.L.R. 63 Cal. 
867 and In the mailer of an Advocate, (1933) 1.L.R. 12 Ran 
110, referred to. 
The acceptance of fee by a Senior Advocate direct from 
the client is not consistent with professional etiquette and 
convenli·>n about the conduct of Senior Counsel. 
DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION 
Sarju Prasad and A. D. Mathur, for 
the 
Advocate. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, 
and R. N; Sachthey, for the. Attorney-General for 
India. 
1963. January 23. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-Mr. P., who is an advo-
cate-on-record of this Court and who will hereafter be 
called the 'Advocate', acted for the Board of Trus-
tees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath of Puri through its 
Executive Officer respondent No. 2 {b) in Civil 
Appeal No. 232/1954. As such Advocate he entered 
appearance on November 9, 1957. The said appeal 
was heard on May, 2 and 6, 1958, and by the Judg-
ment pronounced by this Court on May, 20, 1958, it 
was dismissed with costs in favour of respondent 
No. 2 (b). 
The Advocate had briefed Mr. J. 
as a senior Advocate to lead him at the hearing 
of the appeal. 
It appears that the client had paid 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
699 
the Advocat< Rs. 500/· on the eve of the hearing of' 
1gi;3 
the appeal and ·the senior Advocate was 
paid 
In the Matur •f 
Rs. 1,000/- direct by the client.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.