R. JANARDHANA RAO versus G. LINGAPPA

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 66 · Decided: 12-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R. JANARDHANA RAO 
v. 
G. LINGAPPA 
JANUARY 12, 1999 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961 : Sections 35 and 38. 
Professional misconduct-Act not amounting to-Relief f o,.._Advocate 
C. persuaded complainant, the opposite pa1ty in a civil suit, pursuant to a 
compromise to give him a hand loan of Rs. 3,000 against a post dated 
chequ~The cheque bounced and Advocate did not refund the amount 
despite repeated requests of the complainant-Held, The said act of the 
Advocate does not amount to professional misconduct-But civil remedy or 
criminal litigation under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instrnments Act, 1881 is 
D available to the complainant-However Rs. 3,000 already deposited by the 
Advocate in the Registry of the Supreme Court pennitted to be withdrawn by 
the complainant towards his dues-In addition Rs. 1,000 by way of cost 
awarded to the complainant to be paid by the Advocate-Negotiable Instrn-
ments Act, 1881-l'ractice and Procedure. 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent-complainant, one of the parties in a civil suit, after 
its compromise was persuaded to give a hand loan of Rs. 3,000 to the 
appellant-Advocate of the other side against a post dated cheque. The said 
cheque bounced and despite repeated requests of the respondent the 
appellant did not refund the said amount. Therefore, the respondent filed 
a complaint before the State Bar Council, which came to the conclusion 
that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and suspended 
the appellant from practising as an Advocate for a period of two years. 
The Bar Council of India dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The appellant while taking the loan from the respondent on 
any pretext was not acting in his professional capacity qua the complainant. 
He was acting as a needy person and persuaded the creditor to give him an 
H amount of Rs. 3,000. If that amount was not paid back, civil remedy was 
66 
-I 
R.JANARDHANARAOv. G.LINGAPPA[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 
67 
available to the complainant and if the cheque had bounced after coming A 
... 
into force of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it might 
. 
have resulted in criminal litigation, but the appellant qua the complainant 
..,, 
had not committed any professional misconduct. (68-G-H] 
I 
I 
) 
! 
M.B. Mirzan v. Discipli11a1y Committee of the Bar Council of 
B 
Maharashtra, (1972] 4 SCC 412, referred to. 
" 
2. It is a fit case to award by way of cost to the respondent-com-
plainant an amount of Rs. 1,000 to be paid by the appellant-Advocate in 
addition to the amount of Rs. 3,000 already deposited by the appellant-Ad-
vocate in the Registry of the Supreme Court which the respondent is 
permitted to draw towards his dues. (70-A-B] 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4224 of 
1989. 
-:; 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.89 of the Disciplinary D 
~ 
Committee of the Bar Council of India in Misc. P. No. 1/89 in D.C.A. No. 
15 of 1988. 
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
Anjani Kumar Jha for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. MAJ MUD AR, J. The appellant who is a practising Advocate has 
brought in challenge the order passed by the Bar Council of India under 
the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 holding him guilty of professional F 
" 
~ 
misconduct and ordering his suspension from practice for a period of two 
1 
years. 
A few facts leading to this appeal deserve to be noted. 
One G. Rami Reddy had filed a suit against the respondent- com-
G 
plainant, G. Lingappa and another being O.S. No. 173 of 1983 on the file 
" 
of Assistant Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of 
partnership. In the suit, the appellant represented the opponent of the 
present respondent -complainant. In the suit, the parties negotiated for 
compromise. As per the terms of agreement dated 2.7.1984 a compromise H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A memo was filed in the Court. On the day of compromise, the complainant 
however was paid an amount of Rs. 12,000 cash though he had to receive 
Rs. 3,000 more meaning Rs. 15,000. It is the case of the complainant-
respondent before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh that 
after the said compromise was entered into, the appellant- Advocate for 
B the other side called him for a cup of tea in the canteen and persuaded 
him to give him a hand loan of Rs. 3,000 as he was in urgent need fo

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