Response

Noratanmal Chaurasia vs. M.R. Murli (2004) 5 SCC 689Ð
The Supreme court has held that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

Narain Pandey vs. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC 435 Ð

An advocate who is found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing false and fictitious compromises on behalf of the client without any authority deserves punishment proportionate to the degree of misconduct. Such punishment must meet two objectives- deterrence and correction. The Court referred to the Preamble of the BCI Rules- Chapter II while adjudging the misconduct.
Shambhuram Yadav vs. Hanumandas Khatri AIR 2001 SC 2509-

The lawyer suggested that his client give bribe to the judge to get the suit decided in his favour. The Supreme Court held the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of Rule 3 and 4 of BCI Rules- Ð Chapter II)

Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana AIR 2003 SC 178Ð

Lawyer misappropriated his clientÕs money. BCI acquitted him on the ground that there was no intention. Supreme Court held this decision of BCI to be Òunfounded and perverseÓ and lacking the serious thought which was required to be given to the disciplinary committee of the BCI in the discharge of quasi-judicial functions while probing into such grave instances. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)

Harish Chandra Tiwari vs. Baiju 2002 (2) SCC 67-
Misappropriation of clientÕs money is a grave misconduct to be committed by a legal practitioner, and must be punished accordingly under the Advocates Act. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)

Smt. Siya Bai vs. Sita Ram BCI Tr. Case No. 8/1987Ð
The advocate withdrew the decretal amounts paid and did not make the payment to the client, in violation of Rule 27 of the BCI Rules on Professional Ethics. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India ordered the advocate to refund the money to the complainant along with the 10% interest per annum and also ordered suspension of advocate for a period of one year.

An Advocate vs. Unknown AIR 1961 Ker 209-
It is the imperative duty of the counsel on receipt of the clientÕs decretal money, to inform the client thereof and pay him without the amount under receipt without any delay. The Kerala High Court suspended the respondent for a period of six months, for non-fulfillment of this duty under Rule 27 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.

Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. V. Dabholkar and others AIR 1976 SC 242-

The Bar Council functions in a dual capacity, one as the prosecutor through its Executive Committee and the other quasi-judicial performed through its Disciplinary Committee. Hence, being the prosecutor, the State Bar Council would be an Ôaggrieved personÕ and therefore, the appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would be maintainable.

PD Khandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra 1984 SCR (1) 414-

It is professionally improper for a member of the bar to prepare false documents, or to draw pleadings knowing that the allegations made are untrue to his knowledge. Thus, giving of improper legal advice may amount to professional misconduct, which may not be so by the giving of wrong legal advice. (Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules-Chapter II)

Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya AIR 1997 SC 864-

The defendant assaulted his opponent with a knife. Prosecuted under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Conviction suspended on basis of a letter from the governor. Supreme Court held that his conduct was such that his name should be removed from the state role of advocates as he was unworthy of remaining in the profession after the conviction. (Rule 7A of Chapter III of BCI Rules)

NG Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde AIR 2001 SC 2028-

Advocates kept seeking adjournments, and thus harassing the witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. Guilty of misconduct. Court also analysed Section 35 of the Act and held that the requirement of Òreason to believeÓ cannot be converted into a formalised procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries. Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.

Tulsidas Amanmal Karani vs. Unknown AIR 1941 Bom 228 Ð

Section 35 envisages not only Ôprofessional misconductÕ but also Ôother misconductsÕ, not defined in the Act. In case relating to Indian Bar Councils Act 1926 the Court held that Òany conduct which in any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his profession or is Ôlikely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice by this Court or any of the Courts subordinate theretoÕ may be considered to be misconduct calling for disciplinary action.Ó

Central Bureau of Hyderabad vs. K Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 Ð

For liability, there has to be moral delinquency. Mere negligence sans moral delinquency will not suffice. If negligence is culpable nature, then it may lead to prof misconduct but not necessarily criminal liability.

Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45-

Lawyers have no right to strike, i.e. to abstain from appearing in the court in cases in which they hold vakalat for the parties, even if it is in response to or in compliance with a decision of any association or body of lawyers.

Byram Pestonji Gariwal vs. Union Bank of India (1992) 1 SCC 31 Ð

Supreme Court discussed the role of the counsel in compromise of suit. It will be prudent for counsel not to act on implied authority (given by vakalatnama) except when warranted by the necessity of circumstances demanding immediate adjustment of suit by agreement or compromise and the signature of the party cannot be obtained without undue delay

Reference: Case Laws

2021002620210042472

LAWAYZ-2023-551