VEERABHADRA RAO versus TEK CHAND

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 18-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1003 
M. VEERABHADRA RAO 
A 
v. 
TEKCHAND 
October 18, 1984 
B 
[D. A. DESAI, V. BALAKRiSHNA BRAD! AND V. KHALID, JJ.) 
Bar Council of India Rules 1975, Part VI, Chaprer II-Standards of 
professional conduct and etiquette-Read wUh Rules 34 and 40 of the Civil 
Rules of Practice framed by Andhra Pradesh High Court-Advocate be atte3ted 
affidavit in absence of deponent known to the advocate-Affidavit found to be 
C 
forged and led to the commission of fraud and damage to deponent-Whethl?r 
consritutes professional misconduct-Held-Yes. 
Advocates Act, 1961-S. 35-Punlshment for delinquent 
advocate-
Punishment must be commensurate with gravity of misconduct. 
Advocates Act, 1961 as amended b_,. the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 
1973 (Act 60 of 1973)-S.38-Interp,.tat/on of-Jurisdiction of Supreme 
Co11rt to vary punishment awarded by Dbcfplinary Con1mi1tee of Bar Council 
of India comprehends jurisdiction to vary finding of Di.iclplinary Commirtee of 
Bar Council of l•dla. 
Rule 34 of the Civil Rules of Practice framed by the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court sets out officers authorised to administer oath for the purpose 
of affidavits and an Advocate or Pleader other than the Advocate or Pleader 
who has been engaged in such a proceeding have been included in the 
list of officers authorised to administer oath. 
Rule 40 of the said Rules 
provides that 'the officer before whom an affidavit is taken shall state the 
date on which, and the place where, the same is taken, and sign bis name 
and description at the end, as in Form No. 14, otherwise the same shall not 
be filed or read in any matter without the leave of the Court. 
Form No. 
14 which prescribes the form of affidavit or solemn affirmation requires 
a solemn affirmation or oath before the person authorised to 
admi-
nister the same and then at tho foot of wbicb tho signature of the 
deponent must appear and below that the officer entitled to administer 
oath must put bis signature in token of both th11t he administered tho oath 
and that deponent signed in his presence and by his attestation he bad 
subscribed to both the aspects. 
Provisions contained in Chapter II ill part VI of the Bar Council of 
India Rules or 1975 prescribe 'Standards or Professional Conduct and 
Etiquette'. In the preamble to this part, it is stated that 
~an advocate 
shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his ·status as an 
oflicer of tile Court~ a privileged member of the communit)', and a gentle .. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] I S.C.R. 
man, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person 
who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his 
non~ 
professional capacity rnay still be improper for an advocate. 
It inter alia 
includes that an advocate shall not act on the instructions of any persons 
other than his client or authorised agent. 
Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3S of the Advocates Act, 1961 prescribes the 
various punishments that may be imposed upon a delinquent advocate : 
They are : (a) reprimand the advocate (b) suspend the advocate from 
practice for such period as it may deem fit, and (c) remove the name of 
the advocate from the State roll of advocates. 
Respondent Tek Chand filed a complaint against the appellant, an 
advocate; under Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 
befor~ the Bar Council 
of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 
The respondent alleged that one Mr. 
M. Ram Mohan Rao, advocate, with who1n the appellant was working 
as a junior advocate, was a tenant of a house situated at Rasbtrapathi 
Road, Secunderabad of which he was the owner. 
This house was agreed 
to be sold for Rs. 65,000 tn Premlata daughter of Shri Hastimal Jain and 
Rs. 10,000 were paid as earnest money. 
The sale deed was to be com-
pleted within a period of three months on the vendee paying the balance of 
of consideration of Rs. 55,000. 
The vendeo did not pay the amount and 
t.be respondent alleged that he bad cancelled the agreement for sale. 
It 
was further alleged that as the consideration for sale was exceeding 
Rs. 50,000, the sale deed could not be registered unless an income-tax 
clearance certificate was produced, but as the balance of consideration was 
not paid, the agreement to sell the Hou$c was cancelled. 
However as 
the vendee Premlata wanted to grab the house without paying the balance 
of consideration .. 
in order to get the sale deed registered, it was decided 
to get the income tax clearance cert

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