The main legal point established in the judgment is that entering into agreements to receive a share of the profits of litigation constitutes professional misconduct under the Indian Bar Councils Act.

1. The respondent is an advocate practising in this Court. He was charged with professional misconduct. Five charges were framed against him and these were investigated by a Tribunal constituted under the Indian Bar Councils Act. The Tribunal has reported favourably to the respondent on all the charges. We accept the report except so far as it concerns the second charge. We consider that in this case the charge has been substantiated.

2. The complainant is the brother of one Manickammal who instituted in 1932 a suit on the Original Side of this Court in which she asked for a decree for maintenance as a Hindu widow. She sued as a pauper. She claimed that she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per mensem and to a sum of Rs. 52,000 as arrears of the allowance. Through her brother she engaged various advocates to conduct her suit, but subsequently withdrew her instructions. In July, 1933, the complainant approached the respondent with a view to the respondent acting for his sister. The respondent agreed and the complainant alleges that it was arranged that the respondents remuneration was to be 14 per cent, of the sum which might be decreed in the suit, including costs. The second charge is based on this agreement. The actual charge reads:

That you having been engaged in C.S. No. 168 of 1932 on the file of the High Court for the plaintiff accepted a share of the profits of litigation for your professional remuneration, namely, 14 per cent, of the sum that may be decreed in the suit including costs.

3. The Tribunal thought that no definite agreement had been entered into, but that after discussion the matter was left at large. An examination of the correspondence which passed between the complainant and the respondent shows that the conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be supported.

4. The complainant in the course of his evidence said:

I went to the respondent. This was in May, or June, 1933. That was the very first time I saw the respondent. The respondent called for the papers which I gave him, having got them from Mr. Sankaranarayana. A week later, he said he would take up the case, provided I agree to pay him 20 per cent, of the amount that may be realised in the suit. I bargained with him and ultimately reduced the demand to 14 per cent, of the moneys. I told him the suit must be finished within a month or two. He agreed to do so. He promised to pay Rs. 100 for the maintenance of the plaintiff till the suit was disposed of within the time mentioned above. He agreed to engage a senior. My sister signed a letter confirming the arrangement referred to above and I passed that letter to the respondent.

5. This letter is dated 26th July, 1933, and the copy of it (Ex. A) reads as follows:

Regarding C.S. No. 168 of 1932 I request you to kindly conduct the suit and accept my vakalat with a competent senior and I hereby agree to pay you 14 per cent, of the amount I get in the said suit for arrears of past maintenance.

6. The respondent says that he has no recollection of having received this letter, but there can be no doubt that he did receive it. On the 6th November, 1933, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the respondent saying that he had only paid her Rs. 23 for her maintenance whereas he had agreed to help her to the extent of Rs. 100. The letter proceeds:

Further as per your terms mentioned in my agreement letter taken by you about your fees, you have not till now engaged any senior counsel to conduct the suit and so I am in a fix how you are going to finish the case shortly as per your frequent promises.

7. In the concluding paragraph of this letter there is a further reference to the letter of the 26th July, 1933.

8. On the 19lh January, 1934, the plaintiff wrote to the respondent a letter in which she states:

You took an agreement from me to pay you 14 per cent, from the amount that may be decreed in my favour and you undertook to (1) to meet all the expenses in the case, (2) to engage a senior either Mr. S. Duraiswamy