MANAK LAL versus DR. PREM CHAND

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 06-02-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MANAK LAL 
v. 
DR. PREM CHAND 
(VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAs and 
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.) 
575 
Tribunal-Mefnber having bias against party-Whether tribu· 
~1a"t improperly constituted-Waiver--,_lf! hat amounts 
to-Effect of 
waiver-Failure to examine a witness-Witness no better 
than 
acComplice-Effect-Professional misconduct 
by 
advocate-Measure 
·of punishment. 
r 
P filed a complaint of professiOnal misconduct against M, an 
advocate of the High Court of Rajasthan. 
The Chief Justice 
appointed a tribunal under the Bar Councils Act for enquiry into 
the complaint. 
C, a senior 
advocate, . was appointed chairman 
of the tribunal. 
C had appeared 
once · for 
P before 
the 
trial 
Court in the case out of which the complaint arose. No objection 
was 
raised 
as 
to 
its 
constitution before 
the 
tribunal. 
The 
tribunal found M guilty of having got a false stay order in favour 
of his clients written 
by the clerk of the Court by improper 
means. The High Court concurred in this finding arid directed 
the' removal of M's name from the rolls. 
It was contended on 
behalf of M that the tribunal was not properly constituted. 
Held~ that the collstitu'.tion of thC ··tribunal suffered from a 
serious infirmity in that C was appointed its member and acted 
as its chairman. 
It is well settled 
that every member of 
a 
tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial 
proceedings must be able 
to act judicially; and it is 
of 
the 
<:sseil.ce 
.of _ judicial 
decisions 
and 
judicial administration 
that 
judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without 
~ny bias. In such 
~ases the test is not whether in fact a . bias 
has affected -the judgment; the test always is and must be whether 
" litigant could reasonably apprehend that a 
bias 
attributable 
to ~ member of_ the tribunal might have operated against him in 
the final decision of the tribunal. 
It is in this sense that it is 
<>ften'· ~aid' that·.· justice must not on.ly be · done bu·t must also · 
appeiit to ·be ·Clone. 
-
1 
, Frome Unit<d Br<weri<J Co. ~· Bath fusticu [1926] A.'C, 586, 
Rex v. Sussex 
fustices, 
Ex parte Mc Carthy [1924] I K.' B. 256, 
Rex.''v, .Esjer fustii:h;- Er 'part'e Perkins [1927] 2 K. B.' 475, 
foll<>wed. 
Rer· v. Williams, Ex parte · Phillips [ 1914] I K. B. 608, 
<0xplained. 
The' objection 'to the ·constitution:' of the · tr'bunai" can· be· 
waived. · Waiver can be· inferred· from the failure of the party to 
take··· the objection only if and after it is shown that the party 
1957 
F1hrUarY_ 6. 
' 
1957 
Manak LIU 
y. 
Dr. Prem CAa11d 
Gajendragadkar J. 
·576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 19571 
kne\v about the relevant facts and was aware of ·his right to take 
the objection. 
Since M kne\v that C had 
appc~ued for P and 
1nust be deemed to have been conscious of his legal rights, his. 
failure to take the object!.on before the tribunal creates an cffect-
iYe bar of waiver against him. 
Vyvyan v. Vyvyan (1861) 30 Eeav. 65; 54 E. R. 813 relic,! on. 
Even in quasi-<:riminal proceedings all !n1portant and relevant 
evidence must be laid before 
the 
tribunal, 
but 
it 
is generally 
for· the prosecutor to decide which witnesses are necessary for the 
unfolding of the case. 
No aPvcrse inference can he drawn against 
the complainant's case for failure to exan1ine a V·:itncss \vho was. 
no better than an accomplice. 
The order of the High Court removing l\.fs name fro1n 
the 
:-oll of advocates is fully justified. The n1isconduct proved is of a 
very serious cfiaractcr. 
Disapproval of such unworthy 
conduct 
must be expressed emphatically as the legal profession must be 
saved from persons who do not feel any hesitation 
in 
corruptini 
public officers by unworthy and illegal nicans for the benefit of 
their clients . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 
246 of 1956. 
Appeal by special kave from 
the judgment and 
order dated the NoYember 11, 1955, of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 3 of 1952!. 
· 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, 
Veda 
Vyasa, 
S. K. Kapur and N. H. Hingorani, for the 
appellant. 
H. f. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent 
No. 2. 
1957. February 6. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-The appellant Sri Manak 
Lal 
was an advocate practising at Sojat. A complaint was 
filed against him under s. 13 of the Legal Practitioners 
/I.ct by Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi. It was alleged that 

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