Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Monty Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Navrang Singh – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 77 of 2026
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 35 and 38 – Professional misconduct by Advocate – No evidence was led by respondent-complainant to substantiate allegations set out in complaint – Appellant-Advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations contained in complaint, without complainant being examined on oath and without affording appellant-Advocate indefeasible right of cross-examination, thereby rendering finding of professional misconduct legally unsustainable – Genesis of dispute was a mere misunderstanding regarding deposit of costs which stood resolved during pendency of proceedings, impugned judgment cannot be sustained – Once respondent complainant himself expressed complete satisfaction with professional services rendered by appellant-Advocate and categorically sought to withdraw complaint, very substratum of disciplinary proceedings ceased to exist – As such, order holding appellant-Advocate guilty of professional misconduct is considered wholly unsustainable in facts as well as in law – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein has approached this Court by way of a statutory appeal under Section 38 of Advocates Act, 1961 for assailing final judgment dated 4th April, 2025 passed by Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India in BCI Transferred Case No. 455 of 2023 whereby, 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 respondent’s quashing petition.
Findings of Court:
Respondent-complainant had indeed sworn the aforesaid affidavit affirming that dispute stood resolved and that he did not desire any action against the appellant-advocate in disciplinary proceedings initiated before State Bar Council.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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 to move a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court4 [Hereinafer, being referred to as “High Court”] for quashing the FIR based on the compromise. The High Court vide order dated 28th September, 2018 allowed the quashing petition and quashed the FIR subject to the respondent- Navrang Singh depositing a cost of Rs.10,000/- within two weeks. However, it transpires that the said costs were not deposited within the stipulated time. Consequently, due to the non-production of receipts evidencing compliance, the High Court vide order dated 16th November, 2018 recalled its earlier order and dismissed the quashing petition for want of prosecution, thereby reviving the criminal proceedings against the respondent-Navrang Singh.
3.2 Subsequently, an application for recalling the order dated 16th November, 2018 was filed by the appellant-advocate. The High Court vide order dated 14th January, 2020 recalled the dismissal order, thereby restoring the quashing petition and revived the order quashing FIR, subject to payment of costs enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-.
3.3 It was, at this stage, that the respondent- Navrang Singh, being aggrieved by the alleged negligence and failure of the appellant-advocate to deposit the initial costs, instituted a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana5[ Hereinafter, being referred to as “State Bar Council”].
3.4 During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant-advocate and respondent- complainant arrived at an amicable settlement, wherein the misunderstanding regarding the deposit of costs was resolved. Taking note of this development, the High Court, vide order dated 2nd March, 2021 modified its earlier order by waiving the enhanced costs of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, upon compliance with the original direction to deposit cost, the High Court vide final order dated 12th December, 2022 quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against respondent-Navrang Singh.
3.5 Pursuant to the order dated 12th December, 2022 passed by the High Court quashing the FIR, the respondent-complainant submitted a sworn affidavit dated 15th December, 2022 to the State Bar Council, stating that the complaint was filed due to a misunderstanding regarding costs; that he was satisfied with the appellant’s services, and desired to withdraw the complaint.
3.6 Since the proceedings before the State Bar Council could not be concluded within the statutory period of one year, the matter stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI. Despite the affidavit praying for withdrawal of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant before the State Bar Council, the Disciplinary Committee proceeded to adjudicate the matter and vide judgment dated 4th April, 2025, held the app
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
