Judgment

BOSE, J.: This matter arises out of a summons issued to Mr. G, a Senior Advocate of this Court, under Order IV, Rule 30, of the SC Rules, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

2. Mr. G was called to the Bar in England and was later enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court. He is also an Advocate of this Court. On 20-12-1952 he entered into an agreement with a client whereby the client undertook to pay him 50 per cent, of any recoveries he might make in the legal proceedings in respect of which he was engaged. On this being reported to the High Court the matter was referred to the Bombay Bar Council and was investigated by three of its members under section 11 (1) of the Bar Council Act. They recorded their opinion that this amounted to professional misconduct.

The High Court agreed and suspended Mr. G from practice as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court for six months. The learned Judges considered that they had no power to affect his position as an Advocate of this Court, so directed that a copy of their judgment be submitted to this Court to enable this Court to take such action on it as it thought fit. Acting on this report this Court issued notice to the petitioner under Order IV, Rule 30 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. About the same time Mr. G filled a petition for a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We are confining ourselves in this order to the matter raised in the summons.

3. There is no dispute about the facts. They are set out in Mr. G s petition under Article 32 and are as follows :

On the 23 rd of July 1951 Mr. G s client is said to have entered into an agreement with the Baroda Theatres Ltd., for work on a picture which they intended to produce. The remuneration agreed on was Rs. 15,000. Of this Rs. 3,000 was paid at once and the balance, Rs. 12,000 was to be paid on the completion of the picture. It is said that at the date of the dispute the Baroda Theatres admitted that Rs. 9,4000 was due, but as they did not pay up, the client consulted Mr. G about the best way to recover his money and wanted to know what the expenses and fees would be. After examining the matter in detail and talking it over with his client, Mr. G advised him that two courses were open to him.

4. First, there was a civil suit. He said the cost of this would be about Rs. 500 for court-fees and expenses and about Rs. 1,250 for fees. The other alternative was winding up proceedings. The client was told that in these the court-fees would be lower but Mr. G s fees would have to be higher as winding up proceedings as usually protracted.

5. The client preferred the latter course but said that he could not pay more than Rs. 200 towards expenses and as regards the fees he said he was too poor to pay and so made a proposal which he reduced to writing. It is embodied in the following letter dated 20-12-1952 addressed to Mr. G :

"I hereby engage you with regard to my claim against the Baroda Theatres Ltd., for sum of Rs. 9,400 (balance due to me).

Out of the recoveries you may take 50 per cent, of the amount recovered. I will by Wednesday deposit Rs. 200 in your account or give personally towards expenses."

6. Mr. G said that he was unwilling to work on these terms but when he was pressed to do so and when he realised that unless he agreed the client would probably lose a just claim he reluctantly agreed.

7. Rs. 200 was thereupon paid towards expenses and Mr. G at once entered into correspondence with the solicitors of the Baroda Theatres Ltd. A winding up petitioner was drawn up and declared but was not filed because the matter was compromised at that stage. The Baroda Theatres undertook to pay Mr. G s client Rs. 6,400 in full satisfaction of his claim.

8. The client then paid Mr. G a further Rs. 800 (He had already paid Rs. 200, part of which was spent for expenses). Mr. G s claimed the balance which was roughly Rs. 2,200.

9. We are not concerned with the proceedings i