Back
1997(6) Supreme 657
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
P.D. Gupta -Appellant
versus
Ram Murti & Another -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 15496 of 1996
Decided on 8-7-1997
Held : It is his conduct in buying the property, the subject matter of litigation between the parties, from his client on which he could exercise undue influence especially when there was a doubt cast on his client s title to the property. Had P.D. Gupta sold the property back to Vidya Wati and got the sale deed in his favour cancelled something could have been said in his favour. But that is not so. He sold the property to a third person, made profit and created more complications in the pending suit. P.D. Gupta purchased the properties which were subject matter of dispute for himself and also for his son-in-law at almost throw away prices and thus he himself became a party to the litigation. Conduct of P.D. Gupta cannot be said to be above board. It is not material that Vidya Wati or anyone claiming through her has not complained against him. We are concerned with the professional conduct of P.D. Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. A lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration of Justice is stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of Justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. While conducting the case he functions as officer of the court. Here, P.D. Gupta in buying the property as in effect subverted the process of justice. His action has raised serious questions about his fairness in the conduct of the trial touching his professional conduct as an advocate. By his action he has brought the process of administration of justice in disrepute. (Para 13)
Further held : In the present case the Bar Council of India, through its disciplinary committee, has considered all the relevant circumstances and has come to the conclusion that P.D. Gupta, advocate is guilty of misconduct and we see no reason to take a different view. We also find no ground to interfere with the punishment awarded to P.D. Gupta in the circumstances of the case. (Para 14)
(ii) Professional Misconduct-Advocates-A lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to opposite party in conduct of a case-No one should be able to raise a finger about conduct of a lawyer-Administration of justice is stream which has to be kept unpolluted. (Para 13)
(iii) Bar Councils-Statutory bodies-Functions of-Responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members-Charge of misconduct by an advocate-To be considered and disposed of by Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council expeditiously and within a period of one year (Advocates Act, 1961-Sections 35, 36A).
Held : Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are statutory bodies under the Act. These bodies perform varying functions under the Act and the rules framed their under. Bar Council of India has laid standards of professional conduct for the members. Code of conduct in the circumstances can never be exhaustive. Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are representative bodies of the Advocates on their rolls and are charged with responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members and punish those who go astray from the path of rectitude set out for them. (Para 14)
The charge of professional or other misconduct by an advocate is a serious matter and has to be considered and disposed of by the Disciplinary Committee of a State Bar Council expeditiously and within a period of one year. We are unable to comprehend as to why the Disciplinary Committee of the Delhi Bar Council could not dispose of the matter within the prescribed time frame and it was left the apex body to deal with it. (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.- The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. He has filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against order dated May 4, 1996 of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of one year. This order by the Bar Council of India was passed as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it within a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Act. Section 36B enjoins upon the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the State Bar Council. Under Section 35 of the Act where on the receipt of a complaint or otherwise the State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary Committee.
2. One Srikishan Dass died on January 5, 1980 leaving behind extensive properties, both movable and immovable. One Vidya Wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of District Judge, Delhi for grant of Probate/letters of administration to the estate of deceased Srikishan Dass. This she filed in February, 1980. It is not that there was any will. The complainant Ram Murti (who is now respondent before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three different Wills. They also filed separate proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi. Since there was dispute regarding inheritance to the properties of Srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and injunction against various defendants numbering 23, including the complainant Ram Murti who is defendant No. 21. This suit was filed on February 10, 1982. Vidya Wati had prayed for a decree of injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into property bearing No. 4852 Harbans Singh Street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of immovable properties detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. She also sought a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the Schedule. It is not necessary for us to detail the properties shown in Schedule-A except to note two properties at 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi bearing No. 4852 and 4852-A. It is stated that this suit is still pending in the Delhi High Court and all the proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating to the estate of Srikishan Dass have also been transferred from the Court of District Judge, Delhi to the High Court and are being tried alongwith the suit filed by Vidya Wati as aforesaid.
3. It would appear that Vidya Wati also filed various other proceedings respecting the properties left by deceased Srikishan Dass against occupants or otherwise. P.D. Gupta, advocate who is appellant before us had been her counsel throughout in all these proceedings. The complaint alleged against him in that though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right of Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of Srikishan Dass on account of pendency of various proceedings and further that the complainant and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was false yet P.D. Gupta purchased ground floor of property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaga
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
