Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, M.H. BEG, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, A.C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI JJ.
Bar Council of Maharashtra, Appellant
Versus
M. V. Dabholkar etc. etc, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1461 to 1468 of 1974,
D/- 13-8-1975.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. V.S. Desai Sr. Advocate (Mr. Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta (Advocates of M/s. Mehta Dave & Co. ) Advocates with him) for Appellant in all the Appeals. Mr. M. V. Dabholkar, Advocate (In person), (In C. A. No. 1461 of 1974); Mr. Z. F. Bootwala and Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Advocates (In C. As. Nos. 1462-64 of 1974); M/s. V. N. Ganpule and V. H. Dixit. Advocates (In Person) (In.C. A. No.1465 of 1974); Mr. K. G. Mandalia Advocate (ln person) (In C. A No. 1466 of 1974); Mrs. E. Udayarathnam,and Mr, A. K. Doshi, Advocates(In person) (In C. A. No. 1467 of 1974) and Mr. D. K. Raisinghani, Advocate (In person) (In C. A. No. 1468 of 1974), for Respondens; M/s. D. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, Advocates, for Bar Council of Bihar State; Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate (Mrs. K. Hingorani Advocate with him). for Bar Council of India .
–May vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case nevertheless, normally, a “person aggrieved” must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his little to something, as held in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, AIR 1975 SC 2092 and J.M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578. See also decision in Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 116.
Judgement
A. N. RAY C. J. (for and on behalf of self, H.R. Khann, K. K. Mathew, A. C. Gupta, and S. M. .F. Ali JJ.):- These appeals were placed before this Bench for consideration of the question whether the Bar Council of a state is "a person aggrieved" to maintain an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act. 1961 hereinafter called the Act.
2. The Bar Council of Maharashtra on 8 August, 1964 considered a complaint received from the High Court against the respondents and resolved that the complaint received from the High Court against the respondents be referred to the disciplinary committee. Another resolution was passed by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on the same day whereby Messrs Hotchand Advani, R. W. Adik and S. C. Chagla were elected as members of the disciplinary committee to enquire into the complaints.
3. The aforesaid disciplinary committee met on 19 March, 1965 and heard the Advocates for the Bar Council of the State of Maharashtra After considering the papers placed before the committee, it directed the Registrar to issue notices under section 35 (2) of the Act to the "parties concerned including the Advocate General". The committee also expressed the opinion that "there is a prima facie case of professional misconduct".
4. The Bar Council of Maharashtra on 18. May, 1965 issued notices under S. 35 of the Act to the respondents. The notice was described as a suo motu inquiry against the respondents. The notice proceeded with the recital that it came to the notice of the Bar Council of Maharashtra that the respondents stood at the entrance of the Court House at the presidency Magistrate s Court. Esplanade, Fort Bombay and solicited work and generally behaved at that place in an undignified manner and the said acts amounted to professional and/or other misconduct and the Bar Council constituted disciplinary committee and the inquiry was entrusted to the committee consisting of Messrs H.C. Advani, R.W. Adik and S.C. Chagla.
5. The said disciplinary committee heard evidence upto 31 August, 1968. On 14 June, 1969, the Bar Council of Maharashtra passed a resolution requesting the aforesaid disciplinary committee to proceed with the inquiry which was pending before them prior to 31 March, 1969.
6. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 27 June. 1973 found the respondents guilty of conduct which seriously lowered the reputation of the Bar in the eyes of the public. The disciplinary committee directed that the respondents would stand suspended from practising as advocates for a period of three years. The suspension orders were to be operative form 1 August 1973.
7. The respondents preferred appeals before the Bar Council of India. In these appears, the respondents impleaded the Bar Council of Maharashtra as respondents. The disdisciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India on 14 April, 1974 allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra. While setting aside the orders of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra, the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India stated as follows:-
"The Bar Council of Maharashtra has not appeared even though they started the proceedings suo motu and we do not pass any orders as to costs and we direct each party, will bear their costs. However, we have gone through the evidence ourselves and also the same has been placed in detail by the appellants. All that we can say is that we expected the Bar Council of Maharashtra to be represented in the appeal because proceedings were started suo motu"
8. These statements of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India indicate that the Bar Council of Maharashtra should have appeared before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India.
9. The scheme of the Advocates Act in short is as follows:
There are State Bar Councils. There is Bar Council of India. Every Bar Council is a body corporate.
10. The functions of a State
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
