NORATANMAL CHOURARIA versus M.R. MURLI AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NORA TANMAL CHOURARIA 
V. 
M.R. MURLI AND ANR. 
APRIL 16, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961; Ss. 35 and 38 : 
Complaint of misconduct filed by tenant against landlord, a practising 
C Advocate-State Bar Council transferring it to Disciplinary Committee of Bar 
Council of India-BC/ refasing to enquire into the complaint on grounds that 
landlord did not appear in the rent control procee<fings as an Advocate but 
as a party in person and no criminal proceeding was initiated by the tenant 
nor did police file charge-sheet against the landlord-On appeal, Held: 
D Standard required to be maintained by a member of the legal profession must 
be commensurate with the nobility thereof-,-Although power of BC/ is not 
limited but the thrust of charge must be such which would necessitate initiation 
of disciplinary proceeding-Disciplinary Committee of BC/, a statutory body, 
is duty bound to arrive at finding of facts in respect of the complaint-However, 
findings of BC/ not so irrational meriting interference by this Court. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Misconduct'-Meaning of-In the context of Advocates Act, 1961. 
Respondent-landlord, an Advocate, initiated a rent control 
F proceeding against the appellant-tenant. During pendency of the 
proceedings first respondent filed a complaint before the Bar Council of 
India against the landlord/Advocate citing therein three instances of 
misconduct against him. The State Bar Council had transferred the 
complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI). 
G The Disciplinary Committee of BCI refused to enquire into the complaint 
since factum of occurrence of the incidents were not reliable; that no 
criminal proceeding was initiated by filing a complaint against the first 
respondent by the appellant; that no charge-sheet was filed by the police 
against him; that he has been appearing in the rent control proceedings 
not as an Advocate but as a party in person; and that the appellant has 
If 
266 
N. CHOURARIA v. M.R. MURLI 
267 
failed to substantiate the allegation in the complaint. Hence the present A 
appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the Advocate on the roll of 
the Bar Council could be proceeded against for committing any misconduct 
and not necessarily a professional misconduct; and that since the 
respondent had assaulted him, it must be held to be the acts of misconduct. B 
The respondents submitted that the appellant has been harassing him 
by falsely implicating him in a number of cases but no relief had been 
granted in these cases; that if an act o~ assault takes place in a Court room, 
the same would have been brought to the notice of the presiding officer; C 
that neither any private complaint was filed nor any proceeding in 
criminal court was initiated by the appellant against him; and that no 
evidence in support of the complaint was produced by the appellant before 
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.l. A member of legal profession is expected to maintain a 
standard in dignified and determined manner. The standard required to 
D 
be maintained by the member of the legal profession must be 
commensurate with the nobility thereof. A Lawyer is obligated to observe 
those norms which make him worthy of the confidence of the community E 
in him as an officer of the Court. [273-D-E) 
Bar Council, Maharashtra v. M V. Dabholkar, AIR [1976) SCC 242, 
referred to. 
1.2. Although the power of the Bar Council is not limited, the thrust F 
of charge must be such which would necessitate initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings. A professional or other misconduct committed by a member 
of the profession should ordinarily be judged qua profession. To determine 
the quantum of punishment which may be imposed on an Advocate, the 
test of proportionality shall be applied which would also depend upon the 
nature of the acts complained of. No universal rule thus can be laid down G 
as regard initiation of a proceeding for misconduct of a member of th~ 
profession. (273-F-G( 
'D' an Advocate of the Supreme Court, (1955) 2 SCR 1006, referred 
to. 
H 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. Misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1961. 
Misconduct, inter a/ia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would 
not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute 
conduct and indiscipline, which is

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