J.S. JADHAV versus MUSTAFA HAJI MOHAMED YUSUF AND OTHERS

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 07-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H ! 
J.S. JADHAV 
v. 
MUSTAFA HAJI MOHAMED YUSUF AND OTHERS 
APRIL 7, 1993 
(KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.) 
Aftvocacy-Significance of profession-Punishment whether to be com-
mensurate with the degree and gravity of misconduct. 
Advocates Act, 1961-Section 38--Appeal--Misappropriation--Proof 
of-Enhancement of punishment and direction of Supreme Court to refund 
of amount pending with advocat&--Legality of 
The respondent was defendant in a suit. He engaged the appellant 
as an Advocate. The suit was compromised on 14.6.77 ordering that out of 
the amount lying with the Court receiver, plaintiff was to be paid a sum of 
Rs. 64,000 and the balance to be paid to the defendant-responden\ and 
possession of suit-property to be handed over to the respondent. 
During the tendency of the suit the Court Receiver inducted a tenant 
in a suit property. The tenant filed a suit praying for an interim injunction 
restraining the court receiver from handing over possession to the respon~ 
dent. Tenant's suit was continued. 
After the compromise decree was passed on 14.6.77, the appellant 
withdrew a total amount of Rs. 50,379 from the Court receiver. Out of the 
amount, appellant paid only Rs. 18,000 to the respondent. On 9.1.81 the 
respondent filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council 
of India. On receiving a notice, the appellant submitted reply. 
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council rejected certain 
receipts produced to evidence payment to the respondent and also the plea 
of the appellant that the account books were lost. The Committee 
suspended the appellant for a period of two years and further directed to 
pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the respondent. 
9 
Before this Court the order of the Disciplinary Committee c~ the Bar 
Council of India was challenged contending that the Committee did not 
properly appreciate the e.-;dence and that it was incorrect to hold that the 
1006 
-
,,. 
~ . 
_.. 
y 
_,.\· 
' 
-
-
J.S. JADHAV i-. MUSTAFA HAJI" 
1007 
receipt dated 8.8.77 was a suspicious document merely because the ac-
A 
count books were not produced. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
lo( 
HELD : 1.01. Advocacy is not a craft but a calling; a profession 
wherein devotion to duty constitutes the hall mark. Sincerity o( perfor-
B 
mance and the earnestness of endeavour are the two wings that will bare 
aloft the advocate to the tower of success. Given these virtues other 
qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the reason why legal 
profession is regarded to be a noble one. But it cannot be allowed to 
become a sorriest of trades. Therefore, an exacting standard is what is 
expected of an advocate. [1010 C·D; 1011-C] 
c 
1.02. The members of the noble profession must set an example of 
conduct worthy of emulation. If any of them falls from the high expecta-
tions, the punishment has to be commensurate with the degree and gravity 
of the misconduct. (1012-E] 
D 
Sharasawood Oil legal professioll; Harry R. Blythe cited ill 21 Green 
Bag 224, referred to. 
M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Cha/lli, (1984] S1;pp. SCC 571, referred 
to. (1011-C] 
2.01. The appellant had withdrawn the money from the Court 
Receiver. None of the correspondence addressed to the respondent men-
tioned about the receipt dated 8th of August, 1977. The plea taken by the 
appellant based on the receipt is clearly false. The statement of the 
appellant that the account books had been lost in transit cannot be 
-,_ 
believed. Under these circumstances this is a clear case wherein the 
misappropriation by the appellant has been fully established. (1012-F] 
2.02. The appellant has been withdrawing the money over 14 years 
E 
F 
and ht has illegally retained the amount. Out of a .sum of Rs. 50,379 which G 
was admittedly withdrawn fro" the court receiver only Rs. 18,000 was paid 
on different occasions. Still a sum of Rs. 22,s379 is due. (1012-H, 1013-A) 
2.03. In view of the established finding of misappropriation the 
proper punishment will be the name of the Advocate must be struck off 
the rolls. (1013-B) 
H 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 2 S.C.R. -
-( 
A 
2.114. When Section 38 of the Adv0<:ates Act says, "deems lit', it must 
be construed as to meet the ends of justice. The respondent should not be 
driven to a civil court for recovery of this amount even when the appellant 
has been found guilty. Therefore, it is directed that there shall be a decree 
in favour of the respondent (complainan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.