Back
2011 (8) Supreme 421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Dhanraj Singh Choudahry — Appellant(s)
versus
Nathulal Vishwakarma — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No(s). 2293 of 2005
with
Civil Appeal No. 4484 of 2005
Decided on : 8-12-2011
Facts of the Case :
Present two Appeals have been preferred by ‘advocate appellant’ being dissatisfied with the two orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. By the principal order, the advocate appellant had been suspended from practice for a period of one year from the date of communication of the order.
Findings of the Court :
A.Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council had considered the entire material, including the evidence of complainant and advocate appellant and arrived at the finding that advocate appellant was guilty of professional mis-conduct for having attested the sale deed containing a statement that the shop on western side of saleable property in occupation of complainant had already been transferred to the advocate appellant by giving him ownership right. The attestation of the sale deed containing said statement, which was apparently false to the knowledge of advocate appellant, amounted to professional mis-conduct. The vendor- and his father were the clients of advocate appellant. As a matter of fact, advocate appellant had filed a suit on behalf of vendor against the complainant seeking his eviction from premises for which the statement was made in the sale deed that the said premises in occupation of complainant had been transferred by vendor to advocate appellant.
B. It was not only undesirable but highly unethical on part of advocate appellant to have created title or at least having attempted to create title in him in respect of the property for which litigation was pending in the court and he was representing one of the parties in that litigation. From the material on record professional mis-conduct of the advocate appellant was clearly established and Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, could not be said to have committed any error in holding him guilty of professional mis-conduct.
C. However in the light of mitigitaing circumstances advocate appellant suspended from practice for a period of three months .Appeals were dismissed with modification of sentence.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
These two Appeals have been preferred by Advocate Dhanraj Singh Choudhary (for short, ‘advocate appellant’) being dissatisfied with the two orders dated October 31, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. By the principal order, the advocate appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of one year from the date of communication of the order.
2. On the complaint made by the respondent-Nathulal Vishwakarma against the advocate appellant to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. The allegation of professional mis-conduct against the advocate appellant is that in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 executed by Jitender Singh Bakna in favour of Smt. Suchi Gupta concerning sale of property House No. 423 situate in Nursing Ward, Jabalpur, which was attested by the advocate appellant, it has been stated that on the Western side of the saleable property one shop adjacent to Sahara lounge presently in occupation of the complainant has already been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant by giving him the ownership right, although vendor’s father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the complainant on November 15, 1991 and the vendor’s father has already received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the sale consideration. The complainant alleged that he had already filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated November 15, 1991 which was pending and was within the knowledge of the advocate appellant. As a matter of fact, the advocate appellant had instituted a suit on behalf of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna against the complainant for eviction of the said shop showing the complainant as a tenant of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna.
3. On notice, the advocate appellant filed reply to the complaint and denied the allegations made against him. In his reply, the advocate appellant explained the circumstances in which the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 was executed. He expressed his ignorance about the statement made in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 regarding sale of shop in occupation of the complainant to the advocate appellant by the vendor.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council framed the following issues :-
1. (a) Whether the Respondent-Advocate purchased the property from Jitendra Singh Bhakna as described at Page No. 5 in Sale Deed dated 3.11.99 of which the Respondent Advocate who was attesting witness?
(b) Whether the Respondent Advocate deliberately filed suit for eviction in the name of Jitendra Singh Bhakna against the complainant although the respondent was the owner thereof as mentioned in the sale deed dated 3.11.99?
(c) Whether the respondent advocate has been guilty of professional mis-conduct?
2. Result ?
5. The complainant and the advocate appellant examined themselves and also tendered documents in support of their respective case. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence tendered by them, recorded its finding against the advocate appellant on the above issues and held the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis-conduct. Having adjudged the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis-conduct, the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, awarded punishment of reprimand to the advocate appellant vide its order dated April 22, 2002.
6. Not satisfied with the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, the complainant preferred appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) to the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India issued notice to the advocate appellant on October 5, 2004 intimating him that the matter has been kept on October 30, 2004. On
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
