LexTHE MATTER OF MR. 'A' AN ADVOCATE versus .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
28S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 19111 n, Jiyajtnao Collon Id ills Ltd. v. cannot, therefore, accept either of the two grounds urged by Mr. Viswanatha S&stri challenging th(• vires of the Act. Stott of Madhµ PtaJule MudholkM J. 111111 The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. App,·al diami .. ed. IN THE MATTER OF MR. 'A' AN ADVOCATE (B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUJIBA RAO, J. c. SHAH, RAOHU11AR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Proft83ional Miaconduct-Adoocate on Record writing Uttcra wliciting bri•f•-lf guilty of profuaional miacondud- Unlrulhful comlucl in court-Defect of character-Puniahment-- Supremt Cou•I Ru lea, 19a0 (aa amended), 0. IV A, r. 2. Mr. A, an Advocate on Record of this Court, wrote letters soliciting clients. One of such letters, a post-card was addres.ed to the Law Minister of Maharashtra and ended as follows,- "You might have got an Advocate on Record in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if you so wish and agree,,. To the Registrar of this Court he admitted having written the post-card, but before the Tribunal stoutly denied having don' so. The Tribunal found on evidence that the Advocate had written the post-card. When the matter came up before the court, the Advocate at lint denied having written the post-card but on being pressed by the court to make a true statement admitted that he had writren the post- card and had admitted that before the Registrar. lldd, that it is against the etiquette of the Bar and its professional ethics to •olicit briefs from clients and an Advo- cate who docs so must be guilty of gTOSily unprofessional cond1:ct. Th•rc can be no doubt in the instant case that the Advo- cate concerned had written the post-card soliciting bri.Cs. It makes no diffcronce whether he did •o in ingorance of this elementary rule of the profession or in disregard of it, since his conduct in court showed that he had no regard for truth and, consequently, he deserved no •ympathy of the court and must be suspended. ' (l} S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 289 DISCIPLINARY JuRISDIOTlON: In the matter of Mr. •A' an Advocate. The Advocate in person. H. N. 8anyal, Additional Soliciwr-Gerwral uf India .and T .• ~f. Sen, for the Attorney-General of India.. 1961. September 25 and November 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J.-The Advocate proceeded against for professional misconduct was enrolled a.s an advocate of the Allahabad Hi~h Court in December 1958. In January 1961, he was enrolled as an advocate of this Court. 'fhe proceedings against him were taken in accordance with the procedure laid down in 0. IV-A of the Supreme Court Rules. In March this year the Registrar of this Court received a letter, marked 'Secret', from Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in the Depart- ment of law & Judiciary, to the effect that the "Advocate on Record" of the Supremr Court had addressed a post-card, dated January 1, 1961, to the Minister of Law of the State of Maharashtra., which "constitutes a gross case of advertisement a.nd solicitation for work." The original post-card was enclosed with the letter, with the request that the matter may be placed before the Chief Justfoe and the other Judges of the Supreme Court for such action as to their Lordships ma.y seem "' fit a.nd proper. The post-card, which was marked as Ex:. A in the proceedings which followed, is in these terms : Mr. •A'. Advocate on Record. Supreme Court, Office a.nd Residence B-9, Model Town, Delhi.9. Dated 19-1-61. J!SI ·•'"' ""''"' •f Mr. 'A~ a11 Adl'ttal6 Binlra C. J. 1951 Tn IN malln of lfr, ·~ M AtiDcitcl SW.. C.J. 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. Dear Sir, Jai Hind. Your attention is drawn to the rule 20 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules 1950 (as amended upto date) to appoint an Advocate on Record in tho Supreme Court ae according to this rule 'no advocate other than an advooate on Record shall appear and plead in any matter unless he is instructed by an Advoc9.te on Record.' You might have got an Advocate on Rccor<l in this Court but I would like to place my services at your disposal if yon so wish and agree. To Hoping to be favoured. Thanks, Y oura sincerely, Sd: •A' The Minister of Law, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.'' When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, he directed the Registrar informally to enquire from the Advocate conoerned whe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.