Module 6 OG

PROFESSIONAL
ETHICS AND
PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM
(CLINICAL)
MODULE 6
Module 6: Opinions of the
Disciplinary Committees and
landmark cases:
• Selected opinions of the

Disciplinary Committees of Bar
Councils
• Judgements of the Supreme Court
on the subject
Important cases of Professional
Misconduct – Advocates Act:
Under section 38 of the Advocates Act, any
person aggrieved by an order of the Bar
Council of India may prefer an appeal to the
Supreme Court. Following is a list of
important cases decided by Apex court in
appeal from BCI.
1. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar

Council of India:
Prahlad Saran Gupta collected a sum of Rs.
1600 from the judgment debtor and did not
pay it to the Decree Holder but later
deposited it in the court before appealing
against the bar council disciplinary
proceedings.
The Supreme Court has held that the
anticipated settlement between the parties
for Rs.1500/- was deposited with the
appellant.
Still, he did not return the amount either to

the decree-holder or the judgment debtor
and retained the amount for himself until he
deposited the said amount in the court
which is against professional ethics and
conduct especially being a senior counsel
this kind of conduct is not expected.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that for

this ground the appellant was held guilty of
gross professional misconduct and is
punished for the same.
The punishment of reprimand is imposed on
the appellant for this part of his misconduct
to meet the ends of justice.
2. Hikmat Alikah v. Ishwar Prasad

In this case an advocate was held guilty of
an offence of attempting to commit murder
and was convicted for it. His name was then
removed from roll of advocates as he was
unworthy of remaining in the legal
profession.
3. P.O. Gupta v. Ram. Murti

The Appellant Advocate was practicing in
Delhi. For his professional misconduct he
was suspended from practice for one year.
Under section 38 of the Advocates Act, he
filed an appeal before Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court upheld the order of the State
Bar Council suspending him from practice
for one year.
4. Oalal D.S. v. State Bank of India

In this case the advocate misappropriated
the amount paid towards filling of suit and
professional fees. The disciplinary
committee found him guilty. On appeal the
Supreme Court declined to interfere and
thus upheld the order passed by Bar council
of India.
5. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v.

Balwant Singh Thakur and
Another
Advocates Act, 1961 S.35, S.49 : Allegation
that Advocate interdicted (an official
instruction from a court telling someone
that they are not allowed to do something)
sale proceedings, whether amounts to
professional misconduct?
When the alleged act was done by a person

not in his capacity as an Advocate, it cannot
amount to professional misconduct. What is
relevant is whether the act has anything to
do with the professional conduct of
Advocate : Standards of Professional
Conduct and Etiquette.
Selected Opinions of the disciplinary

Committee of the Bar Council of India:
The disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council after giving the advocate
concerned and the Advocate-General an
opportunity of being heard, can take legal
actions against the Advocate. In such a case
he has a right to appeal before the Bar
Council of India. Here is a list of leading
opinions of Bar Council of India, while
deciding such appeals.
1. Jagadish Singh and Others v.

T.C.Sharma
Jagadish Singh and others were employees
of a School in New Delhi. They approached
T.C. Sharma, Advocate and paid fees to file
a case against their arbitrary dismissal from
their School. The allegation is that without
filing the case the advocate has given a case
number from the Administrative Tribunal,
which was found to be false. When the
advocate refused to return the fees paid, the
complaint was filed.
Result: the Advocate was found guilty of
misconduct.
2. Babulal v. Subash Jain
The complainant and the Respondent are
advocates. The allegation is that though a
practicing lawyer, the respondent is also
working as an Editor, Printer, and Publisher
of a weekly magazine a fact which was not
disclosed at the time of applying for
enrolment. Though the respondent denied
the allegation it was found that the
respondent actively carried on the business
as alleged which amounted to professional
misconduct.
3. Indure Ltd., v. Deo Raj Gupta

The Respondent is the advocate of the
complainant company. The allegation is
that the respondent has not filed suits
against two other companies, but though he
had informed the company about
compliance, he had not filed any suit.
Finally, it was found to be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and the respondent was
prohibited from practicing as an advocate.
4. Commissioner of Civil Supplies &

Consumer Protection Dept v.
Balakrishnan
The appeal was against the order of the Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu giving the benefit of
the doubt to the respondent. The allegation
is that he has sent telegrams to Revenue
authorities misrepresenting the order in writ
petitions. Finally, it was held that it was
professional misconduct.

Module 6 OG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 6 OG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 6 OG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROFESSIONAL

• Selected opinions of the

1. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar

Still, he did not return the amount either to

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that for

2. Hikmat Alikah v. Ishwar Prasad

3. P.O. Gupta v. Ram. Murti

4. Oalal D.S. v. State Bank of India

5. Kaushal Kishore Awasthi v.

When the alleged act was done by a person

Selected Opinions of the disciplinary

1. Jagadish Singh and Others v.

3. Indure Ltd., v. Deo Raj Gupta

4. Commissioner of Civil Supplies &

You might also like