KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI versus BALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 11-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J:. 
~I 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 493 
KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI 
v. 
BALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR. 
(Civi1Appea!No.15540of2017) 
DECEMBER 11,2017 
(A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Advocates Act. 1961 - s.35 - Professional misconduct -
Suspension of licence to practice - A suit was filed by the 
complainant against his brothers in respect of ancestral property in 
C 
which complainant had hired appellant-Advocate - Suit was decreed 
and complainant was declared to he owner of 0.03 acres of suit 
property - Complainant after sometime decided to sell the same -
At the time of registration of sale deed. the appellant-Advocate filed 
o~jection before the Registrar that complainant had borrowed 
inoney ji-om him and for repayment of said amount had offered half D 
share in the said land as security and. therefore. complainant could 
not sell the land without clearing his debt - Complainant challenged 
t~e act on part of appellant-Advocate of appearing before the 
Registrar and objecting to registration of sale deed as professional 
misconduct - State Bar Council and Bar Council of India found the 
appellant-advocate guilty of misconduct and suspended his licence 
to practice - Held: Admittedly. in the instant case, the complainant 
was selling the property to the intending buyer which was an 
arrangement between them unconnected with any legal proceedings 
- The said property was not being sold in execution of any decree. 
in which proceedings the appellant was engaged - The suit of the 
complainant in which appellant was hired had already been decreed 
and the proceedings had concluded - It was much thereafter that 
the complainant intended to sell the property when he found himself 
in need of money - The appellant tried to interdict as according to 
E 
F 
him the complainant could not sell the property without repaying 
G 
his debt - This act had nothing to do with the professional conduct 
of the appellant -Therefore. the very initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings against the appellant by the State Bar Council was 
improper and without jurisdiction - Impugned order of Bar Council 
of India is set aside - Standards of Professional Conduct and 
Etiquette - Chapter II; r.22 - Ethics - Professional ethics. 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 35 of the Advocates Act states that 
punishment can be awarded to an Advocate if he is found guilty of 
professional or other misconduct. Rule 22 is the relevant Rule 
in the instant case which proscribes an Advocate from directly or 
B indirectly making a bid for or purchase either in his own name or 
in other's name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other 
person any property sold in the execution of a decree or order in 
any suit, appeal or other proceedings in which he was in any way 
professionally engaged. Admittedly, in the instant case, the 
C complainant was selling the property to the intending buyer which 
was an arrangement between them unconnected with any legal 
proceedings. The said property was not being sold in execution 
of any decree, in which proceedings the appellant was engaged. 
Insofar as the filing of the suit by the appellant on behalf of the 
complainant is concerned, that had resulted into passing of decree 
D and the proceedings had concluded. 
Even as per the 
complainant's own admission, it was much thereafter that the 
complainant intended to sell the property in question when he 
found himself in need of money. It is this sale which the appellant 
tried to interdict. He was not doing so in the capacity of an 
Advocate. As per him, the complainant was not authorised to 
E sell the property without repaying his debt. Whether the appellant 
was right in this submission or not, is not relevant. What is 
relevant is that this act has nothing to do with the professional 
conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the very initiation of 
disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by the State Bar 
F Council was improper and without jurisdiction.[Paras 6, 7)[498-
D-H; 499-AJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15540 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2017 of the Disciplinary 
G 
Committee of the Bar Council of India, Delhi in D. C.Appeal No. 68 of 
2006. 
H 
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Olivia Bang, Satya Mitra, Advs. 
for the Appellant. 
KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI v. BALWANT SINGH 
495 
THAKUR 
Kabir Dixit, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Namit Saxena, A 
M

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