SARDUL SINGH versus PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 18-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARDUL SINGH 
v. 
PRITAM SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH I 8, 1999 
B 
,,, [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.~. MISRA, JJ.J 
Advocates Act, 1961 : 
... 
Advocate-Miscohduct-Punishment-Respondent held guilty of 
C professional miscondilct-Suspension from practice for three years-
Notwithstanding the order of suspension Respondent continued to practice 
in violation of the suspension order-Complaint filed before Delhi Bar Council 
by appellant that the respondent committed fresh misconduct-Delhi Bar 
Council found him guilty of professional misconduct and also for concealment 
of fact at the time of enrolment that earlier he was convicted by a criminal 
D court-Punishment of admonition imposed-Dissatisfied with punishment 
appellant preferred appeal before Bar Council of India which held the ' 
respondent guilty for practice during suspension and for concealment of 
fact-Bar Council of India enhanced the punishment for suspension of three 
years-Review preferred by respondent before Bar Council of India-In review 
Bar Council set aside its earlier order on two grounds-(i) Fact relating to 
E suppression was not specifically referred in the complaint by the appellant-
(ii) During suspension of practice there was only a single and solitary act 
of filing of vakalatnama by the respondent-Appeal preferred by complainant 
before Supreme Court against the order of Bar Council of India-Held-The 
Bar Council of India was not right in treating the breach as a solitary 
p 
instance in the circumstances of the case-Notwithstanding the absence of 
pleadings before a court or authority, still if an issue is framed and the 
parties were conscious of it and went to trial on that issue and adduced 
evidence and had an opportunity to produce evidence or cross examine 
witnesses in relation to the said issue, no objection as to want of a specific 
pleading can be permitted to be raised later-The misconduct on the part 
G of the first respondent was very grave and the Bar Council of India in its 
initial order was perfectly justified in imposing the punishment of suspension 
for three years~A fresh. order of prohibition of three years from practice 
should be issued by the Bar Council of Delhi. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l 763 of 
H 1993. 
22 
.. 
SARDUL SINGH v. PRIT AM SINGH 
23 
From the Judgement and Order dated 17.4.92 of the Disciplinary A 
Committee of the Bar Council of India in R.P. No. 6 of 1991. 
A.D. Sikri for Appellant. 
Ex-parte for Respondents. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an appeal filed by a complainant against orders passed by the 
Bar Council ofindia on 27.4.92 in a review petition filed by the first respondent-
advocate whereby the review was allowed and the order passed by the Bar 
Council oflndia dt. 4.10.1991 was set aside and the order of the Delhi Bar C 
Council dt. 2.5.90 was restored. 
In this appeal, notice was ordered on 1.11.93 and the first respondent 
was served and he also filed a counter. Thereafter the petitioner complainant 
filed a rejoinder dt.18.3.94. The matter came up for hearing in this court on D 
29.1.99 and was heard for considerable time when neither the first respondent 
nor his counsel Mr. N.S. Bisht were present. After more than an hour and half 
the said counsel appeared and represented that the file was taken away by 
the first responde.nt from him two months earlier on the ground that the first 
respondent wanted to engage another counsel and therafter no instructions 
were given to him (Mr. Bisht). In these circumstances, we adjourned the E 
matter and directed fresh notice to the first respondent af house no.190 first 
floor, Gautam Nag<'ll", New Delhi and informed him that if he does not appear 
the case would be proceeded ex-parte. The office has now filed a report 
dt.8.2.99 that this court's order dt. 21.1.99 has been complied with and notice 
was issued to the first respondent and acknowledgement was also received. 
It is further stated that none is appearing on behalf of the first respondent. F 
After some adjournments, the matter has come up again today and neither the 
first respondent nor his counsel are present. Therefore, we have no choice 
but to dispose of the matter upon hearing the arguments of the learned 
counsel for the appellant and taking into account the counter filed on behalf 
of the first respondent and the further rejoinder filed by the appellant. 
G 
The facts of the case are that on 29. l l.1984 the Bar Council of Delhi

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