Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Monty Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Navrang Singh – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court of India emphasized that an advocate cannot be held guilty of professional misconduct solely based on unsubstantiated or bald allegations contained in a complaint, especially when no evidence or sworn testimony has been provided to substantiate those allegations [para 20].
The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings lacked proper evidentiary support, as the respondent-complainant did not examine any witnesses or provide evidence to substantiate the allegations against the advocate [para 20].
It was highlighted that the respondent-complainant, during the proceedings, expressed complete satisfaction with the professional services rendered by the advocate and explicitly sought to withdraw the complaint through a sworn affidavit, indicating that the dispute had been amicably resolved and the foundation of the disciplinary action had ceased to exist [paras 11, 21].
The Court found that the impugned judgment failed to consider the affidavit and the withdrawal of allegations, which were material facts that undermined the basis of the disciplinary proceedings [para 18].
The Court observed that the finding of professional misconduct was legally unsustainable because the advocate was held guilty without being examined on oath or given an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice [para 20].
The Court concluded that the order holding the advocate guilty of professional misconduct was wholly unsustainable both in facts and law, especially given that the core dispute was resolved, and the complainant had expressed satisfaction with the advocate’s services [paras 21, 22].
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper evidence and the resolution of disputes before holding an advocate guilty of misconduct [para 22].
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with drafting related legal documents.
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant [Hereinafter, being referred to as “appellant-advocate”.] herein has approached this Court by way of a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for assailing the final judgment dated 4th April, 2025 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India2[ Hereinafter, being referred to as “BCI”.] in BCI Transferred Case No. 455 of 2023 whereby, the appellant-advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct for alleged failure to act with reasonable diligence and absence from Court hearing which led to dismissal of the respondent’s quashing petition.
Brief Facts: -
3. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-
3.1 The respondent3 [Hereinafter, being referred to as “respondent-complainant/respondent- Navrang Singh”] came to be arraigned as an accused in FIR No. 150/2018 registered at police station Samrala, Ludhiana, for offences under section 451, 323, 506, 427, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon a compromise being arrived at between the accused and the complainant in the aforesaid FIR on 28th July, 2018, the appellant- advocate was engaged by the respondent-complainant
Professional misconduct by Advocate – No Advocate can be held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in complaint.
(1) Professional misconduct by Advocate – Ordinarily, existence of a jural relationship between complainant and Advocate concerned is a precondition for invocation of disciplinary jurisdiction on the....
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.
Unwarranted conduct by Advocate – No action can be taken against Advocate on the basis of frivolous and motivated complaint.
Professional misconduct by Advocate – Disposal of a complaint received by State Bar Council under Section 35 within a period of one year from date of receipt of such complaint is mandatory.
The Bar Council must form a 'reason to believe' before referring a case for disciplinary action to ensure valid complaints against advocates.
The Bar Council can initiate suo motu disciplinary proceedings against advocates for misconduct, and the procedural requirements under Section 35 of the Advocates Act are not overly restrictive.
An external member of an Internal Complaints Committee does not constitute a client-advocate relationship; therefore, allegations of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act are unfounded.
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
