Back
2011 Supreme(SC) 912
2011 (6) Supreme 676
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran — Appellant
versus
Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2002
Decided on : 15-9-2011
IMPORTANT POINT
Counsel’s paramount duty is to the client and accordingly where he forms an opinion that a conflict of interest exists, his duty is to advise the client that he should engage some other lawyer.
Headnote:Advocates Act, 1961- Section 38 - Complaint filed under section 35 of the Act by Jaipur Development Authority against respondents alleging professional misconduct-Said complaint was dismissed by Bar Council of India -Appeal- Respondent no. 1 appeared for the wife of the respondent no. 3 in the same reference in which he also appeared for the appellant, who were contesting the claims of the claimant including his own sister- These activities of the respondent no. 1 were unbecoming of a professional lawyer and also clear cases of misconduct- Order was passed by Reference Court enhancing compensation from Rs.16,200/- to Rs.1.25 crores- The said order was also not communicated by respondent no. 1 to appellant- He had conducted the case at one stage against the appellant despite being a paid retainer of appellant and also despite the fact that there was a conflict of interest- In fact, respondent no. 1 was under an obligation to disclose his interest in the case and should have refused to accept the brief when offered to him- Nothing of the nature was done and rather he paved the way for getting enhancement of compensation for his sister- The facts analyzed clearly proved the guilt of respondent no. 1- Order passed by Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India modified and direction given that respondent 1 shall be suspended as an Advocate from practice for a period of six months –Appeal disposed off (Paras 20 to 30)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. The present appeal, under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is filed against the final judgment dated 24.03.2002 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India [hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Committee] in BCI Transfer Case No. 74 of 1995, whereby the Committee dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein holding that no case of any misconduct is made out.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the present complaint was filed under section 35 of the Act by Jaipur Development Authority against the present respondents before the State Bar Council of Rajasthan in the year 1994 which was entrusted to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan. Since the proceedings could not be completed in the stipulated period of one year, the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India in the year 1995, registered as Transfer Case No. 74 of 1995.
3. The allegations made in the complaint was that appellant engaged the Respondent No.1 herein on retainer basis in order to defend its cases pending in the different Courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In the year 1990, Respondent No.1 was appointed to defend Jaipur Development Authority in some Reference cases under section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Also, on 05.10.1990, Respondent No.1 was engaged to defend Jaipur Development Authority in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1982, Abdul Samad & Ors Vs. Jaipur Development Authority in Civil Court at Jaipur City. Even his retainership fee was enhanced by additional amount of Rs. 600/- per month.
4. The Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1982 was fixed for filing of the Written Statement in the Court on 07.12.1991. The Respondent No. 1 neither appeared in the Court on 07.12.1991, nor filed Written Statement on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the Court closed the opportunity for filing the Written Statement on behalf of the appellant vide order dated 07.12.1991. The Respondent No.1 did not inform the appellant about the said order dated 07.12.1991 of the learned Court. The Claimant in the said Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1982 examined the witnesses in the Court, but the respondent neither cross-examined those witnesses nor did he inform the appellant about this. Also, in the said Reference, the date was fixed as 10.11.1993 for producing of the entire evidence but no intimation regarding the aforesaid date was given by the Respondent to the appellant, as a result of which evidence of the Appellant was ordered to be closed by the learned Court. The Respondent also did not inform the appellant about the aforesaid order dated 10.11.1993.
5. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1982 was decided on 02.12.1993 against the appellant and in that Judgment, an award of Rs. 1.25 crore was announced by the Court. Even the final order passed by the Court was not conveyed to the appellant. The appellant came to know about the passing of the aforesaid order for the first time on 24.03.1994 when Mr. Manak Chand Surana - Respondent No. 2 filed Execution Petition No. 20 of 1993 in the Executing Court and another Execution Petition was filed by Mrs. Asha Gupta, wife of Respondent No. 3.
6. The appellant sought indulgence of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action against the respondents as envisaged under section 35 of the Act on the aforesaid grounds. It was also contended that Respondent No. 2 work in the same chamber in which the Respondent No.1 has been sitting and that Respondent No. 3 is the brother-in-law of Respondent No.1. Hence, in this manner, all the Respondents are closely related to each other or friends and in connivance of Respondent No.1, the Respondent No. 2 and wife of Respondent No. 3 purchased the rights in the said property in order to earn profit out of the property in dispute which amounted to professional misconduct
