P.D. GUPTA versus RAM MURTI AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 08-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P.D. GUPTA 
v. 
RAM MURTI AND ANR. 
JULY 8, 1997 
B 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
Section 35--Professional misconduct-Where appellant- advocate 
C buying disputed property which was not only under litigation but at a throw 
away price from his client whose title to the property was in doubt and selling 
the same to the third party for profit-Whether guilty of professional miscon-
duct-Held, yes. Also held that such conduct unbecoming of an advocate 
bringing process of administration of justice into disrepute. 
D 
Non framing of charges-Held, not fat al to the proceedings under 
E 
Section 35 when charge was not complicated and the advocate having suffi-
ciently long practice was fully aware of the allegations he was to meet. 
Conduct of an Advocate-Held, should be fair not only to his client 
but also to the Bar as well as the opposite party. 
Role of Advocates-Held, while conducting case he functions as an 
officer of the co wt and there/ ore it is his duty to keep the administration of 
justice unpolluted. 
Professional misconduct-Punishment-Whether disproportionate to 
F the misconduct-Held, by the purchase and the sale transaction he created 
complications in the pending litigation and thereby subverted the process of 
justice. Hence punishment of debarring him from practicing for a period of 
one year, awarded by Bar Council of India, not disproportionate to the 
misconduct. 
G 
Sections 38, 35, 36B-Appeal before the Supreme Court against the 
order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of lndil~Inter­
ference-Wlzen called for-Held, when the Disciplinary Committee on con-
sideration of all the relevant circumstances found the appellant-advocate 
guilty of misconduct, there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take a 
H different view. 
508 
---
P.O. GUPTA v. RAMMURTI 
509 
'Administration of justice'-Philosophy of-Held, administmtion of jus-
A 
tice is stream which has to be kept pure and clean-It has to be kept 
unpolluted-Administration of justice is not something which concerns the 
Bench only-It concerns the Bar as well. 
Words & Phrases: Administration of justice-Meaning of 
The appellant-advocate, who had been the counsel for one V in all 
the proceedings pending before the courts in Delhi with respect to the 
estate of one deceased S, for grant of probate/letter of administration,. 
purchase property from her in his name and in the name of his son-in-law 
B 
at a throw away price. The title of the property purchased by the appellant C 
was in doubt. The main grievance of-the Respondent-complainant before 
the Bar Council of Delhi was, how appellant, being an advocate, could 
purchase the property from his client which was the subject matter of 
dispute between the parties. Complaint filed against the appellant also 
alleged that there was doubt cast on the right ofV inheriting the properties 
of S on account of various pending proceedings and further that the D 
complainant and others had alleged that she was an imposter. Later on 
the same property was sold by the appellant to some third party for profits. 
The Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the Complaint within 
one year as per the mandate of the Advocates Act, and the same was E 
transferred to the Bar Council of India for disposal. 
The Bar Council of India held the Appellant guilty of professional 
misconduct and debarred the appellant from practice for a period of one 
year. Appellant therefore filed appeal under section 38 of the Advocates 
Act, 1961 before the Supreme Court. 
F 
The main contention of the appellant was that the complaint was not 
filed by the aggrieved person. It was also submitted that no specific charge 
had been framed in the disciplinary proceedings which had prejudiced the 
appellant in the conduct of his defence. It was also contended that was no 
longer concerned with the property as he has sold away the same. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Appellant was fully aware of the allegations he was to 
meet. It was not a complicated charge. He has been sufficiently long in 
practice. The argument that a charge had not been formulated appears to H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A be more out of the discontentment of Appellant in being unable to meet 
the allegation. Now, Appellant says that he has washed off his hands of the 
property and thus he is not guilty of any misconduct. That is not the issue. 
It is his conduct in buying the pro

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