What is ms word
Noratanmal Chouraria vs M.R. Murli & Anr
Petitioner
Noratanmal Chouraria
Respondent
M.R. Murli & Anr.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J:
INTRODUCTION
An order of the Bar Council of India dated 27.2.1999 passed in BCI TR No.73/1997 refusing to enquire into a complaint of purported misconduct on the part of the respondent herein is in question in this appeal preferred by the Appellant herein under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The relationship between the appellant and the respondents herein is that of landlords and tenant. A rent control proceeding was initiated by the respondents against the appellant. While the rent control proceeding was pending in the small causes court, they allegedly misconducted themselves by reason of following acts of omissions and commissions:
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu upon receipt of the said complaint of the appellant herein initiated a proceeding. The matter ultimately appeared to have been transferred to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India.
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE BAR COUNCIL
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India noticed that in relation to the aforementioned acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondents, no criminal proceeding was initiated by filing a complaint petition by the appellant. No charge-sheet had also been filed by the police in relation to the occurrence dated 26.10.1993 wherefor an FIR had been lodged. It was further accepted that the first respondent had not been appearing in the aforementioned rent control proceedings as an advocate but as a party in person. Having regard to the fact that till the date of passing of the impugned order neither the appellant herein produced any document to substantiate any follow up action on his part in respect of complaint filed by him before the police authority, nor did he file any private complaint, the committee was prime facie of the view that the factum of occurrence of the said incidents are not reliable. Further, it was noticed that the first respondent appeared in the said litigation not as advocate but as litigant in person.
SUBMISSIONS
For Appellant (Mr. S.B. Upadhyay):
- Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, an advocate can be proceeded against for any misconduct, not confined to professional misconduct
- Bar Council grossly erred in passing the impugned order
- Relied on precedents:
- D An Advocate of the Supreme Court [1955 (2) SCR 1006]
- Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya [1997 (3) SCC 131]
- N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde [2001 (6) SCC 135]
For Respondents (Mr. T. Raja):
- Appellant had been harassing respondents by initiating false cases
- This was the eighth complaint against respondents
- No relief granted in previous seven complaints
- Improbable that court incidents were not reported to presiding officer
- No private complaint or criminal proceeding initiated by appellant
MISCONDUCT - LEGAL DEFINITION
Misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1961. Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, "improper behaviour intentional wrong doing or deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour":
Misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it is a violation of definite law.
Black's Law Dictionary Definition: "A Transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour..."
P. Ramanath Aiyar's Law Lexicon: "The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude..."
Section 35 of Advocates Act: Refers to imposition of punishment for professional or other misconduct. A member of legal profession which is a noble one is expected to maintain a standard in dignified and determined manner.
APPLICATION TO PRESENT CASE
The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India is a statutory body. At the first instance the duty to arrive at a finding of facts in respect of complaint made against a member of the legal profession is upon it.
Key Observations:
- Appellant did not complain to State Bar Council immediately after incidents
- No serious pursuit of FIR lodged on 26.10.1993
- Police filed final forms but appellant did not file protest petition
- Incident of 1.3.1995 inside court room not reported to court
- No complaint made to presiding officer for any incident
"Can in the aforementioned fact situation, the findings of the Bar Council, be said to be so irrational meriting interference by this court is the question? We are of the opinion that it is not."
CASE LAWS DISCUSSED
'M' an Advocate Case:
Advocate appearing in person, conduct amounted to professional misconduct. Continuously attempted to hold up trial. High Court right in taking action.
Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya:
Advocate assaulted opponents with knife. Found guilty under Section 307 IPC. Deserved removal from state rolls.
N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde:
Advocate sought adjournment citing throat infection but was seen arguing forcefully in another court. Prima facie case made out.
Court's Finding: "The aforesaid decisions of this court are not applicable to the fact of the present case."
CONCLUSION
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned order.
ORDER
This appeal is dismissed. But in the facts of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
BENCH
- CJI (Chief Justice of India)
- S.B. Sinha, J.
- S.H. Kapadia, J.