1. Advocate-on-record failed to file bill of costs within the prescribed period under Supreme Court Rules, ignoring client inquiries and requesting unjustified funds. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 13
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., J.C.Shah, K.N.Wanchoo, M.Hidayatullah, P.B.Gajendragadkar, JJ.
President Of India
Versus
P An Advocate
Case No. : 232 of 1954
Date of Decision : 1/23/63
Advocates Appeared: Daphtary C.K. : Dapthary C.K. : Mathur A.D. : Prasad Sarjoo : Sachthey R.N.
Gross negligence by an advocate, characterized by willful and callous disregard for a client's interests and unethical conduct, constitutes professional misconduct involving moral turpitude, justifying disciplinary action including removal from the rolls to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.
Headnote:(A) Supreme Court Rules - Order XL r. 12, Order IV-A r. 18 and 21 - Indian Bar Council Act, 1926 - Section 10(i) - Professional Misconduct - Gross delay in filing bill of costs and vouchers - Failure to respond to client's inquiries and taking unjustified funds - Gross negligence that involves a willful and callous disregard for the interests of the client amounts to professional misconduct - Moral turpitude or delinquency is not to be construed in a narrow sense; any conduct contrary to honesty, opposed to good morals, or unethical, which makes an advocate unworthy to belong to the legal profession, constitutes such misconduct. (Paras 4, 7, 8)
(B) Professional Misconduct vs. Other Misconduct - An advocate may be subject to disciplinary orders for professional misconduct or other misconduct of a dishonorable or infamous character, even if not directly connected with professional activity. (Para 8)
(C) Test for Disciplinary Action - The test for determining if an advocate should be removed from the rolls is whether the proved misconduct renders them unworthy to remain a member of the profession or unfit to be entrusted with the responsible duties of an advocate. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An advocate-on-record failed to file a bill of costs within the prescribed six-week period despite receiving funds from the client for this purpose. The advocate ignored repeated inquiries from the client and later demanded additional unjustified funds. A tribunal found the advocate guilty of gross negligence and professional misconduct.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay was unreasonable and the explanations provided were fantastic and untrue. The advocate's conduct showed a callous disregard for the client's interests, rendering him unworthy of the legal profession.
Issues: Whether gross negligence in filing a bill of costs and ignoring client communications amounts to professional or other misconduct, and if so, the appropriate penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: While mere negligence or error of judgment is not misconduct, gross negligence that is unethical or contrary to honesty involves moral turpitude. The profession of law is an honorable one, and any conduct that makes a person unfit to be entrusted with a litigant's interests must be severely dealt with to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. (Paras 7, 12)
Result: Name of the advocate removed from the rolls for five years and directed to pay costs of the enquiry and hearing.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the advocate's gross negligence in filing the bill of costs and subsequent conduct amounted to professional or other misconduct. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Gross negligence, callous disregard for client interests, and providing false explanations constitute professional misconduct, as the duty of diligence is paramount for advocates-on-record. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 )
4. Gross negligence involving moral turpitude, unethical conduct, or callous disregard for client interests renders an advocate unworthy of the profession and constitutes professional misconduct. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
5. Advocate's name removed from the rolls for five years and ordered to pay costs of the enquiry and hearing. (Para 12 )
6. When does negligence by an advocate amount to professional misconduct?
Mere negligence or error of judgment does not necessarily constitute misconduct. However, gross negligence involving moral turpitude, unethical conduct, or a willful and callous disregard for the client's interests is regarded as conduct unbefitting an advocate and constitutes professional misconduct. (Para 7 )
7. What is the distinction between professional misconduct and other misconduct under disciplinary rules?
Professional misconduct relates to professional activity, while other misconduct may be unrelated to professional work—such as a criminal offense involving moral turpitude—but is of such a dishonourable character that it invites the same disciplinary punishment as professional misconduct. (Para 8 )
8. What is the legal test for determining if an advocate should be removed from the rolls?
The test is whether the proved misconduct renders the advocate unworthy to remain a member of the honourable legal profession or unfit to be entrusted with the responsible duties an advocate is called upon to perform. (Para 10 )
9. What is the expected standard of diligence for Advocates-on-Record regarding the filing of bills of costs?
Advocates-on-record must discharge their duties with diligence, ensuring bills of costs and vouchers are filed within the prescribed period, as this is a matter entirely within their knowledge and responsibility. (Para 4 )
P.B.GAJENDKAGADKAR, J.
(1) MR. P., who is an advocate-on-record of this court and who wilt hereafter be called the Advocate, acted for the Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath of Puri through its Executive Officer respondent No. 2 (b) in Civil Appeal No. 232/1954. As such Advocate he entered appearance on 9/11/1957. The said appeal was heard on May, 2 and 6, 1958, and by the judgement pronounced by this court on 20/05/1958, it was dismissed with costs in favour of respondent No. 2 (b). The Advocate had briefed Mr. J. as a Sr. Adv. to lead him at the hearing of the appeal. It appears that the client had paid the Advocate Rs. 500.00 on the eve of the hearing of the appeal and the Sr. Adv. was paid Rs. 1,000.00 direct by the client. The Bill of Costs and vouchers had to be filed by the Advocate on behalf of his client within six weeks from the date of judgment under O. XL r. 12 of the Supreme court Rules (hereinafter called the Rules). The said period expired during the summer vacation of the court. After the summer vacation, the court reopened on 4/08/1958. Meanwhile, on 20/05/1958, after the judgment was delivered by this court, the Advocate wrote to his client informing him about the result of the appeal and intimating to him that the bill of costs had to be filed. On 28/06/1958, he again wrote to his client and called for Rs. 60.00 to meet the necessary expenses in the matter of presenting the bill of costs. This amount was paid to him at Puri on 26/07/1988, and the Advocate passed a receipt in that behalf, He, however, took no further action in the matter until about 9/01/1959, when it appears that he inspected the court records in order to be able to prepare a draft bill. A bill was accordingly prepared by him and it was presented in court on 19/05/1959. Since the bill was obviously filed beyond the period prescribed by 0. XL. r. 12 the Office returned the bill to the Advocate. In ordinary course, the Advocate should have filed an application requesting that the delay made in filing the bill should be condoned, but he seems to have taken no further action in that behalf. Even so, on 18/05/1960, the Advocate asked for and received Rs. 200.00 from his client. It appears that Mr. Banamdar was the Executive Officer of respondent No. 2 (b) when the Advocate was engaged by him, but later, Mr. Misra succeeded to the office of the Executive Officer and the amount of Rs. 200.00 was paid to the Advocate by Mr. Misra; a receipt for this payment had also been passed. It is difficult to understand why the Advocate asked for this amount. During the period this client wrote to the Advocate enquiring about the bill of costs but received no reply. When Mr. Misra realised that the Advocate was taking no action in the matter of presenting the bill of the costs and obtaining orders thereon, he gave notice to the Advocate on 9/01/1961, discharging him from his engagement. on 12/01/1961, he also applied to this court to cancel the Advocates Vakalat and to condone the delay made in the filing of the bill of costs. On 12/03/1961, the Advocate agreed that his client can engage Mr. Verma. The applications made by the client for cancelling the Advocates Vakalat and for condoning the delay made in the filing of the bill of costs came up before the learned judge in Chambers. They had, however, to -be adjourned from time to time in order to enable the Advocate to appear before the learned Chamber judge. Ultimately, on 9/01/1962, the learned judge condoned the delay made in the presentation of the bill of costs without prejudice to the right of the judgment-debtor to plead that the execution in respect of the bill of costs is barred by limitation. He also ordered that the papers should be submitted to the Honble the chief justice for taking action against the Advocate for the gross negligence shown by him in the conduct of the proceedings in this case The advocate was also directed to hand over all the papers of the case to Mr. Ve
