MADHAV M. BHOKARIKAR versus GANESH M. BHOKARIKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 11-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, AR. LAKSHMANAN · 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 
MADHA V M. BHOKARIKAR 
v. 
GANESH M. BHOKARIKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
MARCH l I, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
S.35(3)(c)-Advocate-Alleged to have taken dealership of petroleum 
C products-Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council found the charge 
proved-:--Pending proceedings, advocate entered into a partnership with his 
younger brother stipulating that advocate would remain a sleeping partner 
and his younger brother would look after the business-State Bar Council 
held the Advocate guilty of professional misconduct and directed his license 
D to practice to be suspended for one year-Bar Council of India enhanced the 
punishment by suspending the licence for five years-It also directed that on 
lapse of jive years advocate will not be allowed to resume practice unless he 
satisfies the State Bar Council that he hq~ abandoned the business in toto and/ 
or will become the sleeping partner-Jn the appeal before Supreme Court,. the 
Advocate submitted that he has suffered the punishment in asmuch as he has 
E not practiced for more than 5 years-Held, the appellant is allowed the liberty 
of approaching the State Bar Council and satisfying it that the appellant had 
discontinued engaging himself actively in the business of petroleum products 
and he would confine himself only to the profession of advocacy-On such an 
application being made and the requisite material being produced by the 
F appellant to the satisfaction of the State Bar Council, the latter would take a 
sympathetic view on the appellant's prayer and expeditiously dispose of his 
application so as to enable him to resume the practice as an advocate-Bar 
Council of India Rules-r. 47. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1532-1533 
G of 1999. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.1998 of the Disciplinary 
Committee of the Bar Council oflndia, New Delhi in D.C.A. Nos. 42 and 42-
A of 1996. 
1122 
j 
M.M. BHOKARIKAR v. G.M. BHOKARIKAR 
I 123 
Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. 
A 
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These are two appeals under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. B 
The appellant is an advocate duly enrolled under the provisions of the 
Advocates Act, 1961 (herein 
after referred to as 'the Act' for short). 
Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Disciplinary Committee 
of the State Bar Council on a complaint made by the respondent accusing the 
appellant of having taken dealership of a retail outlet of petroleum products. C 
On enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found the 
charge proved. According to the State Bar Council, the appellant, though a 
practising advocate, applied for the dealership and subsequently secured a 
letter of intent in his favour. Thereafter, the petrol pump was also started. The 
complaint was made after about two years of the retail outlet having remained 
in operation. During the pendency of the enquiry against the appellant, he D 
entered into a partnership with his younger brother wherein the mutual 
arrangement arrived at between the two partners was that the appellant would 
remain a sleeping partner and his younger brother would actively and wholly 
look after the business. On 20.6.1998, the State Bar Council having held the 
appellant guilty of professional misconduct, directed his license to practice to· E 
be suspended for a period of one year under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of 
section 35 of the Act. 
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Bar Council, the appellant 
as well as the complainant preferred two appeals; while the appellant sought 
for the order of the State Bar Council being set aside, the complainant sought F 
for enh·ancement of punishment. Both the appeals have been disposed of by 
a common order dated 25.8.1998. The appeal preferred by the appellant has 
been dismissed while the complainant's appeal has been allowed. The operative 
part of the order has been so constructed by the Disciplinary Committee of 
the Bar Council of India : 
"We order suspending Shri Madhav Mareshwar Bhokarikar from 
practice for a period of five years enhancing the punishment awarded 
G 
by the Bar Council of Maharashtra for a period of one year. Even 
after the lapse of five years, he will not be allowed to resume the 
practice automatically unless and until he satisfies the Bar Council of H 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Maha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.