NARAIN PANDEY versus PANNALAL PANDEY

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 10-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 752 
NARAIN PANDEY 
v. 
PANNALAL PANDEY 
(Civil Appeal No. 6363 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 10, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Advocates: 
c 
Professional misconduct -Punishment - Adyocate filing 
Vakalatnamas without any authority and subsequently filing 
fictitious compromises - A/so reprimanded previously by 
Disciplinary Committee of BC/ - Disciplinary Committee of 
State Bar Council holding the charges proved and debarring 
D the advocate from practice for 7 years - DC, BC/, modifying 
the punishment by reprimand and costs of Rs.10001- - Held: 
In view of the specific finding recorded by Disciplinary 
Committee of State Bar Council, the professional misconduct 
committed by the advocate is extremely grave and serious -
He deserves punishment commensurate with degree of 
E miscon.duct that meets the twin objectives; i.e. deterrence and 
correction - Advocate debarred from practice for 3 years from 
date - Administration of justice - Practice and Procedure. 
F 
Practice and Procedure: 
Misconduct of advocate - Disciplinary Committee of 
State Bar Council, on the basis of oral and documentary 
evidence, holding the charges proved -
Disciplinary 
Committee of BC/, accepting the oral submission and 
G affidavit of advocate, reversing the finding of Disciplinary 
Committee of State Bar Council - Held: The Disciplinary 
Committee, BC/ accepted the oral submission of the advocate 
without realizing that he even did not offer himself for cross-
examination in respect of the affidavit that he filed in support 
H 
752 
NARAIN PANDEY v. PANNALAL PANDEY 
753 
of his reply - As a matter of fact, the advocate did not tender 
A 
any evidence whatsoever in rebuttal - Mere oral submission 
unsupported by oral or documentary evidence on behalf of 
the advocate did not justify reversal of thorough and we/1-
considered finding by the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar 
Council on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence 
B 
let in by the complainant in support of the complaint- Findings 
of Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council restored -
Evidence. 
On a complaint filed by the appellant against the 
C 
respondent-advocate, the Disciplinary Committee of the 
State Bar Council held that the respondent was involved 
in a very serious professional misconduct by filing 
vakalatnamas without any authority and later on filing 
fictitious compromises which adversely affected the 
interests of the parties concerned. It also noticed the 
D 
previous conduct of the respondent with regard to which 
the Bar Council of India (BCI) had affirmed the raprimand 
order and had also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- on him. 
In the circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee of the 
Stae Bar Council passed the order dated 28.5.2002 
E 
debarring the respondent from practice for a period of 
seven years. On appeal, the Disciplinary Committee, BCI 
did not agree with the said finding and modified the order 
of punishment. It reprimanded the advocate and also 
imposed a cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by him to BCI. 
F 
Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The consideration of the matter by the 
Disciplinary Committee, BCI is clearly flawed. It G 
overlooked the most vital aspect that seven witnesses 
tendered in evidence by the complainant had stated 
clearly and unequivocally that the respondent-advocate 
had filed forged and fabricated vakalatnamas on their 
behalf and they had not filed any compromise in 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A Consolidation Court. The respondent-advocate had not 
at all cross-examined these witnesses on the said 
aspect. There was ample documentary evidence as well 
which proved the allegations made in the complaint. The 
Disciplinary Committee, BCI accepted the oral 
B submission of the respondent-advocate without realizing 
that he even did not offer himself for cross-examination 
in respect of the affidavit that he filed in support of his 
reply. As a matter of fact, the respondent-advocate did not 
tender any evidence whatsoever in rebuttal. Mere oral 
c submission unsupported by oral or documentary 
evidence on behalf of the respondent-advocate did not 
justify reversal of thorough and well-considered finding 
by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council 
on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence let in 
0 by the complainant in support of the complaint. The 
finding recorded by the Disciplinary Commi

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