LexV.P. KUMARA VELU versus THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A V.P. KUMARA VELU v. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND ORS. FEBRUARY 4, 1997 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Advocates Act, 1961: Section 35( 1)~ Professional misconduct-Negligence-City Government Pleader failed C to prosecute two cases-Thereby resulting in ex parte decrees against the. State-The office staff had not put up papers of the cases before City Government Pleade,......The Deputy Executive Tehsildar did not contact City Government Pleader though directed by Collector to meet him with files · ·concerned and assist him in the preparation of written statement-Held: Such f <ii?ure was due to heavy pressure of work and not deliberate-In the cir- D cumstances of the case, and in absence of any moral turpitude or delinquency on part of City Government Pleader, such failure amounted only to negligence but not professional misconduct. The appellant was appointed as City Government Pleader and was . E required to conduct all the civil matters pending in the civil courts except F the High Court. The appellant failed to prosecute two cases resulting in ex parte decrees against the State. On a complaint filed by the State Govern- ment the Bar Council of India held the appellant guilty of negligence and professional misconduct and imposed a punishment of severe reprimand on the appellant. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that since the office staff did not put up the papers of the cases before the appellant, it was through inadvertence that the suits came to be decreed ex parte and that the Deputy Executive Tehsildar did not contact the appellant although the Collector G directed him to meet the appellant with the files concerned and to assist the appellant in preparing the written statement. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. Looking to all the circumstances the appellant was H negligent, as he had failed to attend to the two cases. There is, however, 900 ) .. __ :-. V.P.KUMARVELUv. B.C.1.NEWDELHIANDORS. [MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.] 901 no finding of any ma/a fides on the part of the appellant or any deliberate A inaction on his part in not attending to the two cases. [905-E] 1.2. Whether negligence will amount to professional misconduct or not will depend upon the facts of each case. Gross negligence in the discharge of duties partakes of shades of delinquency and would undoub- tedly amount to professional misconduct. Similarly, conduct, which amounts to dereliction of duty by an advocate towards his client or towards his case, would amount to professional misconduct. But negligence without moral turpitude or delinquency may not amount .to professional miscon- duct. [905-F-G] In re a vakil 1926 ILR 49 Mad 523, approved. P.D.Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR, (1984) SC 110, relied on. B c 2. In the present case, there is failure on the part of the appellant to D discharge his duties towards his client. This failure, however, is not deliberate. It is on account of heavy pressure of work coupled with lack of diligence on the part of his staff as well as on the part of his client in not sending a responsible person with papers to the office of the Government Pleader. However, while the appellant cannot be held responsible for his E client's failure to attend the office, the appellant cannot shift the blame entirely on his staff. As the head of the office it was his responsibility to make sure that the work is properly attended to and the staff performs its functions properly and diligently. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been held guilty of negligence. However, in the absence of any moral turpitude or delinquency on his part, the finding of the Bar Council. of F India that his conduct in the facts and circumstances of this case amounted to professional misconduct cannot be sustained. [906-E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3917-18 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.86 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, Madras in B.C.l.T.C. No. 48 and 49 of 1985. A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji for the Appellant. G H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R. A A. Mariarputham and Ms. Aruna Mathur and V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondent Nos. 2-3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. These appeals arise from a com- . B mon order dated 15.5.1986 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.