Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th November 1956.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B.P. SINHA AND S.K. DAS, JJ.
Lalit Mohan Das, Appellant
Versus
The Advocate-General, Orissa and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No.176 of 1956 and Writ Petn. No. 165 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate (Messrs. D. N. Mukherjee and R. Patnaik, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Messrs. Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
Munsif drawing proceeding against legal practitioner on charge under section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879-Report submitted to High Court through District Judge-High Court alone is competent to pass final orders.
Order of High Court-Interference by Supreme CourtConstitution of India, Article 136. A Munsif of Anandapur in the district of Mayurbh,.mj in Orissa drew up proceedings against a legal practitioner on a charge under section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty arising out of certain incidence that took place in his Court, and submitted a report to the High Court through the DistrictJudge of Mayurbhanj on December 12, 1953. The District Judge forwarded the report, accompanied by his opinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954. The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be suspended from practice for one year. The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa, and by its order dated March 15, 1955, the High Court came to the conclusion tbat the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of five years with effect from March 15, 1955. The legal practitioner then obtained special leave from the Supreme Court to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court. He also filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
It transpired that on 22-12-1953 the legal practitioner filed an application to the Additional District Judge for time to move the High Court to get an order to have the matter heard by some other Judical Officer. One months time was accordingly granted and the Additional District Judge sent the record back to the Munsif. In the meantime the Additional District Judge made an effort to settle the trouble. As per the terms of settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge, the legal practitioner appeared in the Court of the Munsif on 8-1-1954 and filed a written apology and expressed his regret. The proceeding against him was thereupon dropped. Subsequently the Munsif expressed the view that the terms of settlement suggested by the Additional District Judge were not fully carried out. Accordingly the proceeding was reopened and the record was resubmitted to the District Judge. It was thereupon that the District Judge sent the report of Munsif to the High Court accompanied by his opinion. It was contended on behalf of the legal practitioner that there was no valid reason for reviving the proceeding against him after the proceedings had been dropped on 8.1.1954.
Held: (1) The order passed by the munsif on 8.1.1954 had not the effect of terminating and bringing to an end the proceeding against the legal practitioner. The report of the Munsif dated 12th December 1953 was a report which was submitted to the High Court. Under the provisions of section 14, Legal Practitioners Act, such a report had to be forwarded to the High Court by the District Judge accompanied by his opinion. It was not open to the Additional District Judge to send back the record to the Munsif. The efforts of the Additional District Judge were well intended, but at that stage after the Munsif had made his report to the High Court, the High Court alone was competent to pass final brders in the matter.
(2) "1\ member of the Bar undoubtedly owes a duty to his client and must say before the Court all that can fairly and reasonably be submitted on behalf of his client. He may even submit that a particular order is not correct and may ask for a review of that order. At the same time, a member of the Bar is an officer of the Court and owes a duty to the Court in which he is appearing. He must uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything to bring the Court
itself into disrepute/ In this case the legal practitioner imputed partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Cou,rt. He suggested that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders. The legal practitioner was therefore guilty of grave professional misconduct. He grossly overstepped the limits of propriety when he made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court. In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, ~e legal practitioner was adding insult to injury; because the Munsif had really upheld an order of his predecessor on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees" which order has been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalizing the Court in such a manner was really polluting the very foundation of justice; such conduct was not a matter between an indiviaual member of the Bar and the member of the judicial service; it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice. From that point of view the conduct of the legal practitioner was highly reprehensible/
(3)/On a matter of this nature the Supreme Court would be reluctant to interfere with the order of the High Court as respects the disciplinary action to be taken against the member of the Bar who has been guilty of professional misconduct. However, in view of the two mitigating circumstances of the case, namely that the Munsif recommended suspension from practice for one year only and the legal practitioner had filed written apology, the punishment imposed by the High Court erred on the side of excess. The period of suspension should be reduced to two years only. - Professional misconduct-Legal Practitioners Act (1879) Sections 13, 14-Bar Councils Act, 1926, Section 10-Imputations of partiality and unfairness against Munsif in open Court.
Muusif drawing proceeding against legal practitioner on charge under section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879-Report submitted to High Court through District Judge-High Court alone is competent to pass final orders.
Order of High Court-Interference by Supreme Court-Constitution of India, Article 136. - Article 136 -Disciplinary action against legal practitioner-Order of High Court - Interference by-Supreme Court.
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J.:- The appellant is Shri Lalit Mohan Das, a pleader of about 25 years standing, who ordinarily practised in the Courts at Anandapur in the district of Mayurbhanj in Orissa. The Munsif of Anandapur, one Shri L. B. N. S. Deo, drew up a proceeding under Ss. 13 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 against the pleader for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty and submitted a report to the High Court through the District Judge of Mayurbhanj on December 12, 1953. The District Judge forwarded the report, accompanied by his opinion, to the High Court of Orissa on March 9, 1954. The recommendation of the Munsif was that the pleader should be suspended from practice for one year. The reference was heard by the High Court of Orissa, and by its order dated March 15, 1955 the High Court came to the conclusion that the pleader was guilty of grave professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of five years with effect from, March 15, 1955.
2. Shri Lalit Mohan Das then obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated the 15th / 23rd March 1955. He also filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition under Art. 32 and nothing more need be said about it. We proceed now to deal with the appeal which has been brought to this Court on special leave.
3. The charges against the appellant were the following. On July 15, 1953 the appellant was appearing on behalf of the defendant in Suit No. 81 of 1952 pending before the Munsif of Anandapur. On that date, there were two other suits pending before the same Munsif. There were petitions for time in all the three suits. The Munsif wanted to take up the oldest suit for hearing, and the oldest suit being Suit No. 54 of 1952, it was taken up first and five witnesses for the plaintiff were examined. Suit No. 81 of 1952 was postponed to August 18, 1953. The appellant, who appeared for the defendant in that suit, was informed of the postponement. When so informed, the appellant made a remark in open Court and within the hearing of the Munsif to this effect: "If the Peshkar is gained over, he can do everything". He then left the Court. The Munsif was surprised at the remark made and asked the appellant to explain his conduct, by means of a letter sent the same day. As the appellant sent no reply, the Munsif wrote again to the appellant on, July 18, 1953. To this letter the appellant sent the following reply;
"Dear Sir,
I am painfully constrained to receive memo after memo for some imaginary act of mine not in any way connected with my affairs for which if any explanation is at all warranted officially.
For your second memo I felt it desirable as gentleman to reply.
Further I may request you, to be more polite while addressing letters to lawyers.
Yours faithfully,
Sd. L. M. Das, Pleader".
It is obvious that the letter of the appellant was couched in very improper terms and considerably strained the relation between the Munsif and the appellant. The appellant, it may be stated here, was at that time the President of the Anandpur Sub-Divisional Bar Association which consisted of about 14 legal practitioners. On July 21, 1953, Shri B. Raghava Rao, who was the predecessor in office of Shri Deo, came to Anandapur. He was the guest of Shri A. V. Ranga Rao, the Sub-Divisional Officer. One Shri N.C. Mohanty a pleader of Anandapur & who was related to the appellant, came to invite the two Munsifs to a luncheon on the occasion of a house warming ceremony. On hearing about the trouble between Shri Deo and the appellant, Shri B. Raghava Rao interceded and it appears that the appellant was persuaded to come to the house of the Sub- Divisional Officer and to say that he was sorry for what had happened in Court on July 15, 1953 and that he did not mean to insult Shri Deo; Shri Deo, it appears, accepted the apology and for t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
