Notes and Articles for Law students

User Tools

Site Tools


Important cases of Misconduct - Advocates Act

Under section 38 of the Advocates Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the Bar Council of India may prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. Following is a list of important cases decided by Apex court in appeal from BCI.

Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India

In this case1) Prahlad Saran Gupta collected a sum of Rs. 1600, from the judgement debtor and didn't pay it to the Decree Holder,.but later deposited in the court before filing appeal against the bar council disciplinary proceedings.

Supreme Court held the end of justice would be met if the punishment of reprimand is imposed on the appellants for his misconduct.

Hikmat Alikah v. Ishwar Prasad

In this case2) an advocate was held guilty of an offence of attempting to commit murder and was convicted for it. His name was then removed from roll of advocates as he was unworthy of remaining in the legal profession.

P.O. Gupta v. Ram. Murti

The Appellant Advocate was practicing in Delhi. For his professional misconduct he was suspended from practice for one year. Under section.38 of the Advocate Act he filed appeal before Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the State Bar Council suspending from practice for one year.3)

Oalal D.S. v. State Bank of India

In this case4) the advocate misappropriated the amount paid towards filling of suit and professional fees. The disciplinary committee found him guilty. On appeal the Supreme Court declined to interfere and thus upheld the order passed by Bar council of India.

Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v. Balwant Singh Thakur and Another

Advocates Act, 1961 S.35, S.49(1)(c) : Allegation that Advocate interdicted sale proceedings , Whether amounts to professional misconduct?

When the alleged act was done by a person not in his capacity as an Advocate, it cannot amount to professional misconduct. What is relevant is whether the act has anything to do with the professional conduct of Advocate : Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, Chap. 2 R.22.5)

Selected Opinions of the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India

The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, can take legal actions against the Advocate. In such a case he has a right to appeal before the Bar Council of India. Here is a list of leading opinions of Bar Council of India, while deciding such appeals.

Jagadish Singh and Others v. T.C.Sharma

Jagadish Singh and others were employees of a School in New Delhi. They approached T.C. Sharma, Advocate and paid a fees, to file a case against their arbitrary dismissal from their School. The allegation is that without filing the case the advocate has given a case number from the Administrative Tribunal, which was found to be false. When the advocate refused to return the fees paid, complaint was filed. Result: the Advocate was found guilty of misconduct.6)

Babulal v. Subash Jain

The complainant and the Respondent are advocates. The allegation is that though a practicing lawyer, the respondent is also working as an Editor, Printer and Publisher of a weekly which fact was not disclosed at the time of applying for enrolment. Though the respondent denied the allegation it was found that the respondent actively carried on the business as alleged and which amounted to professional misconduct.7)

Balswaroopsoni v. Babulalsoni

In this proceedings8) the Appellant is the son of the Respondent. The allegations in the complaint are that

  1. a criminal case was pending against him,
  2. he introduced him as a surety in a criminal case while acting as an advocate and
  3. has withdrawn in a civil suit the amount deposited in complainant’s name.

The appellant was found guilty of professional misconduct.

Indure Ltd., v. Deo Raj Gupta

The Respondent is the advocate of the complainant company. The allegation is that the respondent has not filed suits against two other companies but though he had informed the company as to compliance, he had not filed any suit at all. Finally it was found to be proved beyond doubt and the respondent was prohibited from practicing as an advocate.9)

Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Dept v. Balakrishnan

The appeal10) was against the order of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu giving benefit of doubt to the respondent. The allegation is that he has sent telegrams to Revenue authorities misrepresenting the order in writ petitions. Finally it was held that it was professional misconduct.

A. Banumurthy v. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

The Appellant was compulsorily retired from Judicial Service for alleged corruption. Subsequently he applied for resumption of practice. The State Bar Council suspended his practice for professional misconduct for two years but on appeal the Bar Council of India has allowed the applicant to continue practice on technical grounds.11)

Dr. D.V.P. Raja v. D. Jayabalan

The Bar Council of India held that the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Tamilnadu has powers to order on merits despite a resolution passed by the Bar Council that there was a prima facie case against the respondent.12)

G.M.H. Irmani v. Iswarappa

The Bar Council of Karnataka as well as the Bar Council of India held that the complainant has not proved his case against the Respondent for professional misconduct.13)

N.S. (Appellant) v. K.V. (Respondent)

Appellant is a Govt. pleader and the respondent is a senior advocate. At the time of going to the Advocates Association they had an argument with regard to a mentioning before a judge of the High Court and it was alleged that the appellant had used vulgar words against the complainant. Both the State Bar Council and the BCI held that there was professional misconduct on the part of the Appellant.14)

P.R. (Complainant) v. V.I. (Respondent)

Complainant is a District Munsiff and the respondent is a practicing advocate. The advocate filed a contempt petition with serious allegations against the District Munsif. The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh held that filing the contempt petition against the presiding officer was professional misconduct. Pending the proceedings the advocate was selected and appointed as District Munsif. Bar Council expressed its inability to pass any order and forwarded the records to the High Court for necessary action.15)

AIR 1977 SC 1338
AIR 1977 SC 864
AIR 1988 SC 283
AIR 1993 SC 1608
2017 KHC 6882
BCI TR Case No. 47/1990
BCI TR Case No. 115/1986
BCI D.C. Appeal No. 25/1992
BCI TR Case No. 58/1993
D.C. Appeal No.15/1995
D.C. Appeal No. 3/1994
BCI D.C. Appeal No. 43/1996
BCI D.C. Appeal No. 30/1995
BCI D.C. Appeal No. 14/1988
BCI D.C. Tr. Case No. 101/1988

Navigation: Home»Professional Ethics