1. Complaint against an advocate for professional misconduct for objecting to the registration of a sale deed based on a personal debt claim. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Kaushal Kishore Awasthi - Appellant
Versus
Balwant Singh Thakur & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 15540 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2017
Important Points
An advocate's action taken in a personal capacity, such as objecting to a property sale to recover a personal debt, does not amount to professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, if the act is unrelated to their professional duties or the execution of a legal decree.
Subject
Professional Misconduct - Advocate's Conduct
Act Referred
Headnote
ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 - Sections 35, 49(1)(c) & Bar Council of India Rules (1975), Part VI, Chapter II & Standards of Professional Conduct & Etiquette, Rule 22 - Professional misconduct - Ground that advocate objecting to registration of sale deed of complainant's land without being interested party in said sale - Sale of property on choice of complainant and not in execution of any decree in which advocate was engaged - Act of advocate not in professional capacity - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct by State Bar Council, held, improper.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Olivia Bang, Mr. Satya Mitra
For the Respondents: Mr. Kabir Dixit, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mr. Namit Saxena, Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Ms. Taruna A. Prasad, Mr. Aishwarya Pathak
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Ms. Olivia Bang, Mr. Satya Mitra
For the Respondents: Mr. Kabir Dixit, Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mr. Namit Saxena, Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Ms. Taruna A. Prasad, Mr. Aishwarya Pathak
Table of Contents
2. Whether an advocate's act of objecting to a property sale in a personal capacity constitutes professional misconduct under the Advocates Act. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. The objection was a private matter unrelated to professional engagement, as the property was not being sold in execution of a decree. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Acts performed by an advocate in a personal capacity, unconnected to professional engagement or decree execution, do not amount to professional misconduct. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed and the impugned orders of the Bar Council of India set aside. (Para 8 )
6. Does an advocate's objection to a property sale based on a personal debt constitute professional misconduct?
No, if the act is performed in a personal capacity and is not related to the advocate's professional engagement or the execution of a decree in a matter where they were professionally engaged. (Para 7 )
7. What is the scope of Rule 22 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette regarding property purchase?
Rule 22 prohibits an advocate from bidding for or purchasing property sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit or proceeding in which they were professionally engaged. (Para 4 , 6 )
8. When can a State Bar Council exercise jurisdiction to punish an advocate for misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act?
A State Bar Council can award punishment if an advocate is found guilty of professional or other misconduct. However, acts performed outside the professional capacity that do not violate professional rules fall outside this jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
JUDGMENT :
Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant) had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Bar Council') on 19.12.2003 against the appellant, who is an Advocate by profession, alleging that the appellant had acted in a manner which amounts to professional misconduct. On that basis, the complainant pleaded that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a Disciplinary Committee was constituted as the reply dated 03.02.2006 filed by the appellant was found not to be satisfactory. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Disciplinary Committee passed final orders dated 09.12.2006 holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and, on that basis, imposed punishment by suspending his license of practice for a period of two years. The appellant preferred statutory appeal against the said decision of the State Bar Council before the Bar Council of India (BCI). Vide the impugned judgment, the BCI has affirmed the finding of the State Bar Council as far as holding the appellant guilty of misconduct is concerned. However, it has reduced the term of suspension of license from 2 years to one year along with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Against this order of the BCI, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.
2. A neat plea which is taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken to be correct on its face value, these do not amount to committing any misconduct as per the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules framed thereunder. We are, therefore, confined to this aspect in the present appeal.
3. From the complaint which was lodged by the complainant before the State Bar Counsel it can be discerned that his allegation was that there was a family dispute, i.e., between the complainant and his brothers, in respect of a property which was in the name of their father and was an ancestral property. It was stated that after the death of their father on 11.10.1989, the said property was divided by the three brothers equally. However, it transpired that before his death, one of the brothers of the complainant influenced his father and got registered the said property in the name of the complainant's nephew, i.e., son of that brother, without the consent of other brothers vide sale deed dated 25.07.1989. The complainant had approached the appellant, who is an Advocate, for filing the Suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed was null and void as it was prepared fraudulently. The appellant acted as his Advocate and filed the Suit. In the said Suit, the parties settled the matter as they agreed for declaring the sale deed as ineffective and requested the Court for division of the property. This resulted in passing of decree dated 24.10.1994 by the Court in which the complainant was declared owner of 0.03 acres along with kutcha house out of the disputed property. Till this stage, there is no quarrel and there is no allegation against the appellant as far as his conducting the said Suit is concerned. However, the complainant further alleged that owing to family crises, the complainant suffered some financial crunch in the month of April, 2003, and he decided to sell his share of land to one Mr. Narsinghmal, son of Surajmal, for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and for the purpose of registration of sale deed, he produced the earlier sale deed before the office of the Deputy Registrar, Dantewada. At that stage, the appellant produced objection letter against the proposed sale deed and objected for registration of the said sale deed on the ground that the complainant did not have full ownership of the proposed land and the market value was also shown less in the said sale deed. It was stated by the complainant that the appellant was neither an interested party in the said sale deed or in the proposed sale of the land nor was he
