MRS. R.D. BHATIA versus SMT. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 10-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MRS. R.D. BHATIA 
v. 
SMT. RAJINDER KAUR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996 
B 
(A.M. AHMADI, CJ., S.P. BHARUCHA AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
Sections 36 (B), 38(3)(c) and 43 (Br-Gross Professional misconduct 
C alleged against advocate-Bar Council of India suspending the advocate from 
the rolls for two years and to pay costs to complainant-On appeal, held: 
D 
Evidence of complainant shaky and unacceptable-All aspects not properly 
appreciated by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council-17ms resulting in 
miscaniage of justice-Hence set aside. 
Respondent no. 1 filed a complaint before the Bar Council of 
Maharashtra at Bombay alleging that while conducting her case, the 
appellant had committed acts of gross professional misconduct by going 
hand in glove with the defendant from behind the curtain and in 
collusion and conspiracy with two other Advocates, by not contesting the 
E suit against the defendant :liligently and properly with the intention to 
cause loss and harm to her. The Bar Council of Maharashtra could not 
dispose of the complaint within one year as required by Section 36 (B) 
of the Advocates Act 1961. Therefore, the case was transferred to the 
Bar Council of India and it took the view that the appellant committed 
F 
professional misconduct ancl passed an order suspending her for two 
years, with costs to be paid to the complainant. The Review preferred 
by the appellant was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal and 
G 
special leave petition. 
On March 21, 1996, this Court passed an order setting aside the 
order of the Bar Council of India, and disposing of these matters. 
Giving reasons in support of the order dated March 21, 1996, this 
Court 
H 
HELD : 1. The allegation made by the complainant respondent 
742 
R.D. BHATIA v. RAJINDER KAUR 
743 
against the appellant is that in or about the month of September, 1988 she A 
engaged the appellant as her counsel to represent her in the execution case, 
when she was introduced to the appellant by somebody. The respondent 
has alleged that she had :;igned the Vakalatnama in favour of the appellant 
for presenting it in the Court but it was not presented by the appellant till 
30.1.1987 and on the contrary got appointed two Advocates on her behalf B 
without the knowledge of the respondent No. 1. It has been alleged in the 
complaint that the appellant collected for different dates, in all amounting 
to.Rs. 3500 towards the part payment of the decretal amount from the 
defendent, but the appellant did not pay the same to her inspite of her 
insistance to pay the said amount to her. The complainant respondent C 
No.1 has further alleged that the appellant in collusion and conspiracy 
with the two Advocates,played a dirty game to get the ex-parte decree set 
aside by malpractices by remaining behind the curtain with an intent to 
cause loss and harm to her and to the advantage· of the defendant by 
illegally and wrongfully consenting to set aside the ex-parte decree without D 
her knowledge and consent. The affidavit filed in reply to the Notice of 
Motion, respondent No. 1 has refuted the allegations made against the 
appellant and has made a categorical statement that the appellant was 
only acting as a mediator to settle the dispute between respondent No. 1 
(plaintiff) and the defendant and in pursuance of the settlement the total E 
payment of Rs. 3800 was made towards the decretal amount. She has also 
categorically stated that the appellant was not her advocate at that point 
of time and that the appellant had filed her appearance in the City Civil 
Cour.t only on 29.1.1997. This statement clearly falsifies the alleg:..tion of 
the complainant-respondent No. 1 that she had engaged the appellant as 
her counsel in the month of September, 1986 but the appellant presented 
the Vakalatnama on 30.1.1987. The Disciplinary Committee has very lightly 
brushed aside the aforementioned statement of respondent No. 1 in her 
F 
own affidavit on the ground that this affidavit was filed in English by the 
appellant without reading over and explaining the contents thereof to the 
respondent No. 1 in any langnage other than English. The Committee thus G 
accepted the bald statement of the respondent No. 1 as true, contrary to 
the Committee's own observations with regard to the demeanour of the 
complainant/respondent No. 1 reading of the observations of the Commit-
tee go to show that the complainant-respondent No. 1 not only could rea

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