JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN versus SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 15-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 403 
JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN 
v. 
SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2002) 
·SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
ADVOCATES ACT, 1961: 
A 
B 
c 
s. 35 - Advocate - Professional misconduct - Advocate 
engaged by Vikas Pradikaran as a retaining counsel - He 
appeared in a reference case on behalf of his sister in which 
Vikas Pradikaran was contesting the claims, and also 
accepted the engagement given to him by Vikas Pradikaran 0 
as it counsel to contest ttJe claims in _the said reference case, 
but did not defend it in the case, as a result of which the 
compensation was enhanced from Rs. 16,2001- to Rs. 1.25 
crores by the reference court -
The order was a/so not 
communicated to the client -
Complaint by the Vikas 
Pradikaran against the Advocate - Held: The Advocate had E 
conducted the case at one stage against the complainant 
despite being a paid retainer of it and also despite the fact 
that there was a conflict of interests - He was under an 
obligation to disclose his interest in the case and should have 
refused to accept the brief when offered to him - He betrayed F 
the trust reposed on him by the complainant and paved the 
way for getting enhancement of compensation for his sister -
The conduct of the Advocate in conducting the case clearly 
proves and establishes his misdemeanour and he is guilty 
of professional misconduct - It is directed that the Advocate G 
be suspended from practice for a period of six months -
Advocate - Professional ethics - Bar Council of India Rules, 
1.961. 
403 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant, namely, Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran 
which engaged respondent no.1 as its counsel on 
retainer basis, filed a complaint against him u/s.35 of the 
Advocates Act, 1961 as also against two other advocates, 
namely, respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the ground that 
B respondent no.1 appeared for one of the claimants who 
was his sister and wife of respondent no. 3, in a reference 
case in which the complainant was contesting the claims; 
that respondent no. 1 should not have accepted the brief 
and his acceptance of the engagement without disclosing 
c the material fact amounted to misconduct. It was the case 
of the complainant before the Disciplinary Committee of 
the State Bar Council that respondent no.2 was a 
chamber mate of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 3 
was the brother-in-law. of respondent no.1 and as such 
all the respondents were friends or ~losely related to each 
D other and in connivance of respondent no.1, four relatives 
of respondent no.2 and the wife of respondent no.3 
purchased the rights in the property in dispute which 
amounted to professional misconduct and respondent 
no.1 intentionally acted against the interest of the 
E appellant in not defending it in the said reference case. 
Since the proceedings in the complaint could not be 
concluded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar 
Council within the stipulated period of one year, the 
complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India, 
F 
which by its judgment dated 24.03.2002 dismissed the 
complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 From the facts.disclosed, it is established 
that an award was passed by the Collector in respect of 
the land in question on 4.3.1982 determining the value of 
the land at Rs.16,200/- for the entire land. At that stage the 
claimants were the three land owners. After the award 
was· passed, the three land owners, transferred the right 
H 
JAIPURVIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR 405 
CHOUDHARY 
. 
to receive compensation to 'SS', who executed further A 
assignment deed in favour of 4 relatives of respondent 
no. 2 and one Smt. 'A', the sister of respondent no. 1 and 
wife of respondent no.3, and they got themselves 
substituted as parties-claimants in the reference 
proceedings, namely, Reference Case No. 14/1982. After B 
substitution, Smt. 'A' and 4 relatives of respondent No.2 
were parties in the reference proceedings as claimants. 
Respondent no. 1 appeared in the said reference case on 
19.1.1990 for his sister (wife of respondent no.3), namely 
Smt. 'A', and despite this, he accepted the engagement c 
given to him by the appellant-complainant as its counsel 
to contest the claim of the said contesting claimants, one 
of which was his own sister. The records also disclose 
that in fact responde

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