{"id":36364,"date":"1988-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988"},"modified":"2015-06-21T21:12:37","modified_gmt":"2015-06-21T15:42:37","slug":"an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","title":{"rendered":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 245, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 361<\/div>\n
Author: M Thakkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAN ADVOCATE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB.B. HARADARA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/09\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  245\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 361\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2)  25 JT 1988 (4)\t376\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1362\n\n\nACT:\n    Advocate's Act--Sec. 38 Professional misconduct standard\nof proof--Required of--Section 35--Procedure to be  followed\nat the inquiry by Bar Council.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant is an Advocate. Gautam Chand was  one  of\nhis  old clients. The complainant-Respondent No.  l  engaged\nthe appellant on being introduced by Gautam Chand to file  a\nSuit  against  Shri S. Anantaraju for recovery of a  sum  of\nRs.30,098 with Court costs and interest in the Court of City\nCivil Judge at Bangalore. The appellant passed on the papers\nto  his junior advocate to file the Suit which he  did.\t The\ncomplainant's  allegation is that the matter in\t dispute  in\nthe  suit  had\tnot been settled at all\t and  the  appellant\nwithout\t the knowledge and without his instructions filed  a\nmemo  in  the Court to the effect that the matter  has\tbeen\nsettled\t out of Court and accordingly got the  suit  dismis-\nsed  and  also received half of the institution\t court\tfee;\nabout  which  the  complainant was not\taware,\tnor  was  he\ninformed  by the appellant. The complainant's allegation  is\nthat  he was not informed about the dates of hearing of\t the\nsuit;  when  inquired he was simply told that  the  case  is\nposted\tfor filing written-statement where his presence\t was\nnot  neces- sary. When nothing was heard by the\t complainant\nfrom  the  appellant  about the progress  of  his  suit,  he\npersonally  made  inquiries and came to learn to  his  great\nsurprise  that\tthe  suit  in  question\t had  in  fact\tbeen\nwithdrawn as settled out of Court.\n    The\t version  of the appellant Advocate is\tthat  Gautam\nChand,\this  old  client, had  business\t dealings  with\t the\nplaintiffs,   Haradara\t(Complainant)  and   the   defendant\nAnantaraju.  Anantaraju\t had also executed an  agreement  on\n9.8.80\tto  sell  his house property  to  Gautam  Chand.  He\nreceived  earnest money amounting to Rs.35,000\tfrom  Gautam\nChand.\tAnantaraju  however did not execute  the  sale\tdeed\nwithin\tthe  specified\ttime. Gautam  Chand  approached\t the\nappellant  for legal advice. The appellant caused the  issue\nof notice to Anantaraju calling upon him to execute the sale\ndeed. A notice was also issued on behalf of the\t complainant\ncalling\t upon  the defendant  Anantaraju  demanding  certain\namounts\t  due  on  3  self  bearer  cheques   amounting\t  to\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 362\nRs..30,098   issued  by\t him  in  course  of  their   mutual\ntransactions.\n    Gautam Chand and the complainant were friends having  no\nconflict of interests Gautam Chand instructed the  appellant\nand  his junior Ashok that he was in possession of the\tsaid\ncheques issued by Anantaraju and that no amount was actually\ndue  from Anantaraju to Haradara Complainant.  Gautam  Chand\ndesired\t Anantaraju  to execute the  sale  deed.  Anantaraju\nexecuted  the  sale  deed on 27.11.81 in  favour  of  Gautam\nChand, even though an order of attachment before judg-\tment\nin respect of the said property was in existence. Consequent\non  the execution of the sale deed, the object of  the\tsuit\nwas achieved. The complainant did not at any time object. In\nthis  back ground, the appellant had reasons to believe\t the\ninformation re: settlement of dispute  conveyed by the three\ntogether  on 9.12.81. Acting on the said informa- tion,\t the\nappellant asked Ashok his erstwhile junior to take steps  to\nwithdraw  the  suit,  which  he\t did  on  10.12.8l  as\t per\ninstructions received from the appellant noted on the docket\nof the brief.\n    The\t state Bar Council, called for the comments  of\t the\nappellant  relating to the complaint. No charge\t was  framed\nspecifying  the\t nature\t and  content  of  the\tprofessional\nmisconduct attributed to the appellant. Nor were any  issues\nframed\tor  prints  for\t determination\tformulated.  Instead\nthereof the Bar Council proceeded to record evidence. As the\ncase  could  not  be concluded within the  time\t limit,\t the\nmatter\tcame to be transferred to the Bar Council of  India.\nThe  Bar  Council off India addressed itself  to  the  three\nquestions, viz.\n(i) Whether the complainant was the person who entrusted the\nbrief  to the appellant and whether the brief was  entrusted\nby the complainant to the appellant.\n(ii)   Whether\treport\tof  settlement\twas   made   without\ninstructions or knowledge of the complainant?\n(iii)  Who  was\t responsible for  reporting  settlement\t and\ninstructions of the complainant ?\n    The\t Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of  India\nafter  considering  the\t matter found  appellant  guilty  of\nprofessional misconduct and suspended him for practising his\nprofession  for 3 years on the charge of having withdrawn  a\nsuit (not settled) without the instruction of the clients.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 363\n    The\t appellant  has\t filed\tthe appeal  u,s\t 38  of\t the\nAdvocates   Act.   The\t following   questions\t arose\t for\nconsideration by this Court.\n(i)  Whether  a\t specific charge  should  have\tbeen  framed\napprising  the appellant of the true nature and\t content  of\nthe professional misconduct ascribed to him:\n(ii)  Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt and the\tneed\nof  establishing the basic allegations were present  in\t the\nmind of the Disciplinary Authority in recording the  finding\nof  guilt  or in determining the nature and  extent  of\t the\npunishment inflicted on him;\n(iii)  Whether in the absence of the charge and\t finding  of\ndishonesty against him the appellant could be held guilty of\nprofessional  misconduct even on the assumption that he\t had\nacted on the instructions of a person not authorised to\t act\non  behalf of his client if he was acting in good faith\t and\nin  a bona fide manner. Would it amount to lack of  prudence\nor   non-culpable   negligence\tor   would   it\t  constitute\nprofessional misconduct.\nDisposing of the appeal, the Court,\n    HELD: That the appellant was not afforded reasonable and\nfair  Opportunity  of showing cause inasmuch as he  was\t not\napprised of the exact content of the professional misconduct\nattributed  to\thim and was not made aware  of\tthe  precise\ncharge he was required to rebut. [376E-F]\n    That  in  recording the finding of facts  on  the  three\nquestions.  referred  to  above. the  applicability  of\t the\ndoctrine  of benefit of doubt and the need  for\t established\nthe facts beyond reasonable doubt were not realized. Nor did\nthe  Disciplinary  Committee  consider the  question  as  to\nwhether the- facts established that the appellant was acting\nwith  bona  fides or mala fides whether\t the  appellant\t was\nacting with any oblique and dishonest motive. whether  there\nwas  any mens rea; whether the facts constituted  negligence\nand  if so whether it constituted culpable  negligence.\t Nor\nhas  the Disciplinary Committee considered the\tquestion  as\nregards\t the  quantum  of punishment in\t the  light  of\t the\naforesaid  considerations  and\tthe  exact  nature  of\t the\nprofessional  misconduct established against the  appellant.\n[376F-H; 377A]\n    The\t Court, in view of the fact that \"the matter is\t one\nof the ethics of the profession which the law has  entrusted\nto the Bar Council of India\" and it is in their opinion,  \"a\ncase  which  must receive due weight\" did  not\tconsider  it\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 364\nappropriate  to examine the matter on merits  without  first\nhaving the opinion of the Bar Council of India. [377D]\n    Remanding  the  matter to the Bar Council of  India\t the\nCourt directed it to consider whether it would constitute an\nimprudent act, an unwise act, a negligent act or whether  it\nconstituted  negligence and if so a culpable negligence,  or\nwhether\t it constituted a professional misconduct  deserving\nsevere\tpunishment, even when it was not established  or  at\nleast  not  established\t beyond reasonable  doubt  that\t the\nconcerned Advocate was acting with any oblique or  dishonest\nmotive or with mala fides. [377H; 378A]\n    L.D.  Jaisinghani  v.  Naraindas N.\t Punjabi,<\/a>  [1976]  3\nS.C.R.\t354 and Re: M. v. Distt. Judge Delhi, [1956]  S.C.R.\nP. 811(814), referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  316  ot
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated\t 31.12.1986  of\t the
\nDisciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I.
\nTransfer Case No. 407 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
S.S. Javali and Raju Ramachandra for the Appellant.
\nRavinder  Bhat,\t N.  Ganapathy and  Promod  Swarup  for\t the
\nRespondents .\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    THAKKAR, J. A hast of questions of seminal significance,
\nnot  only  for\tthe Advocate who  has  been  suspended\tfrom
\npractising  his\t profession  for 3 years on  the  charge  of
\nhaving\t withdrawn   a\tsuit  (as   settled)   without\t the
\ninstructions  from his client, but also for the\t members  of
\nthe legal profession in general have arisen in this appeal:\n<\/p>\n
1. Appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
\n    (1)\t Whether a charge apprising him specifically of\t the
\nprecise nature and character of the professional  misconduct
\nascribed to him needs to be framed?\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Whether in the absence of an allegation or  finding
\nof  dishonesty\tor  mens  rea  a  finding  of  guilt  and  a
\npunishment
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 365
\nof this nature can be inflicted on him?\n<\/p>\n
    (3)\t Whether  the allegations and the finding  of  guilt
\nrequire to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?\n<\/p>\n
    (4) Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?
\n    (5)\t Whether  an Advocate acting bona fide and  in\tgood
\nfaith  on the basis of oral instructions given by  some\t one
\npurporting  to act on behalf of his client, would be  guilty
\nof professional misconduct or of an unwise or imprudent act,
\nor negligence simpliciter, or culpable negligence punishable
\nas professional misconduct?\n<\/p>\n
    The suit was a suit for recovery of Rs.30,098 (Suit\t No.
\n65\/81\ton  the\t file  of  Additional  City   Civil   Judge,
\nBangalore).  It appears that the complainant  had  entrusted
\nthe  brief  to\tthe  appellant which  he  in  his  turn\t had
\nentrusted to his junior colleague (respondent No. 2  herein)
\nwho was attached to his Office and was practising along with
\nhim at his office at the material time. At the point of time
\nwhen the suit was withdrawn, respondent No. 2 was practising
\non his own having set up his separate office. On the  docket
\nof  the brief pertaining to the suit, the appellant made  an
\nendorsement  giving  instructions to withdraw  the  suit  as
\nsettled.  A  sketch was drawn on the back of  the  cover  to
\nenable the person carrying the brief to the junior colleague
\nto locate his office in order to convey the instructions  as
\nper  the endorsement made by the appellant. The\t allegations
\nmade  by the complainant against the appellant are  embodied
\nin paragraphs 1 & 2 of his complaint:\n<\/p>\n
    1. The petitioner submits that he entrusted a matter  to
\nthe  Second  Respondent\t to  file a  case  against  Shri  S.
\nAnantaraju  for\t recovery of a sum of Rs.30,098\t with  Court
\ncosts  and current interest in Case No. O.S. 1965\/81 on\t the
\nfile  of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.  The  Petitioner
\nsubmits that the said suit was filed by the first respondent
\nwho  was  then\ta  Junior  of  the  Second  respondent.\t The
\npetitioner  submits that the matter in dispute in  the\tsuit
\nwas  not settled at all and the first respon-  dent  without
\nthe knowledge and without the instructions of the petitioner
\nhas  filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out  of
\nCourt  and got the suit dismissed and he has  also  received
\nhalf  of the institution court fee within l0 days since\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 366
\ndate  of  the disposal of the suit. The\t petitioner  submits
\nthat  he  has  not received either the suit  amount  or\t the
\nrefund of court fee and he is not aware of the dismissal  of
\nthe  suit as settled out of court.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The  petitioner submits that when the case was posted
\nfor  filing of written statement itself the first respondent
\nhas filed  such a memo stating that the suit was settled out
\nof  Court.   The  petitioner  submits  that  in\t fact,\t the
\nrespondents  did not  even inform the petitioner  about\t the
\ndates of hearing and  when the petitioner asked the dates of
\nhearing the respondents informed the petitioner stating that
\nhis  presence is not  required in the Court since  the\tcase
\nwas posted for filing of  written statement and therefore  .
\nthe  petitioner did not attend\tthe Court on that  day.\t The
\npetitioner submits that when he\t enquired about the  further
\ndate  of hearing the respondents  did not give the date\t and
\nsaid that they would verify the next  date of hearing  since
\nthey  have not attended the case since the  case was  posted
\nfor   filing  written  statement  by  the  defendant.\t The
\npetitioner  submits that when he himself went to  the  Court
\nand verified he found to his great surprise that the suit is
\ndismissed  as  settled out of court and latter\tlearnt\tthat
\neven the  half of the institution court fee is also taken by
\nthe first  respondent within 10 days.\n<\/p>\n
The version of the appellant may now be unfolded:\n<\/p>\n
    (i)\t One  Gautam Chand (R.W.3) has been  a\tlongstanding
\nClient\tof the appellant. Gautam Chand had business  dealing
\nwith   the plaintiff Haradara and the Defendant\t Anantaraju.
\nBesides. Anantaraju executed an agreement dated 9.8.1980  to
\nsell his house property to Gautam Chand. He received earnest
\nmoney  in  the\tsum of rupees  35,000  from  Gautam   Chand.
\nAnantaraju,  however, did not execute the sale deed   within
\nthe stipulated period and during the extended period It\t was
\nin  these circumstances that Gautam Chand (RW 3)  approached
\nthe appellant for legal advice.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t It is the common case of parties that Gautam  Chand
\nintroduced the complainant Haradara to the appellant and his
\ncolleague Advocate respondent No. 2<\/span>
\n    (3)\t The  appellant\t caused the issue  of  notice  dated
\n1.6.1981  (Ex. R\/15) on behalf of Gautam Chand addressed  to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 367
\nthe  seller Anantaraju calling upon him to execute the\tsale
\ndead.  On the same date, a notice was separately  issued  on
\nbehalf\tot the complainant Haradara addressed to  Anantaraju
\ndemanding  certain  amounts due on the three  `self’  bearer
\ncheques\t aggregating,  Rs.30,098  issued  by  Anantaraju  in
\ncourse of their mutual transactions. This notice was  issued
\nby  the\t Advocate respondent No.2 acting on  behalf  of\t the
\ncomplainant Haradara.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t Gautam\t Chand\t(RW  3) and  Haradara  (PW  1)\twere
\nfriends. Anantaraju was their common adversary. There was no
\nconflict of interests as between Gautam Chand and  Haradara.
\nGautam\tChand  instructed the appellants and  his  colleague
\nrespondent  No. 2. Ashok, that he was in possession  of\t the
\nsaid  cheques  issued by Anantaraju and that no\t amount\t was
\nactually  due from Anantaraju to the  complainant  Haradara.
\nGautam\tChand was desirous of stops to induce Anantaraju  to
\nexecute the sale deed in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
    (5) A suit being O.S. No. 1965 of 1981 was instituted on
\nbehalf\tof the complainant  Haradara claiming on  amount  of
\nRs.  30,000  and odd, from the defendant Anantaraju  on\t the
\nbasis  of  the\taforesaid  cheques.  It\t was  instituted  on
\n30.6.1981. An interlocutary application was moved on  behalf
\nof Haradara by respondent No. 2 as his Advocate seeking\t the
\nattachment   before  judgment  of  the\timmovable   property
\nbelonging  to the defendant Anantaraju. The property was  in
\nfact the subject of an agreement to sell between  Anantaraju
\nand  Gautam  Chand (RW 3) The Court  initially\tdeclined  to
\ngrant  an  order  of attachment. In order  to  persuade\t the
\nCourt,\tcertain\t steps were taken through  the\tsaid  Gautam
\nChand.\tHe caused the Publication of a notice  stating\tthat
\nthe  property  in  question was the  subject  matter  of  an
\nagreement  between Anantaraju and himself and it should\t not
\nbe dealt with by anyone. The publication of this notice\t was
\nrelied\tupon  subsequently  on\tbehalf\tof  the\t complainant
\nHaradara  by  his  advocate (respondent\t No.  2).  Ashok  in
\nseeking\t an  order  of attachment. The\tCourt  accepted\t his
\nsubmissions and passed the order of attachment.
\n    (6)\t Subsequently the defendant Anantaraju executed\t the
\nsale  deed dated 27th Nov., 1981 in favour of Gautam  Chand.
\nThe  object of the suit was achieved. The sale deed  was  in
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 368
\nfact  executed\tduring\tthe  subsistence  of  the  order  of
\nattachment  concerning\tthe  same  property.  The  plaintiff
\nHaradara  has not objected to it at any time.  Consistently,
\nthe  appellant\thad reasons to believe\tthe  information  of
\nsettlement of dispute conveyed by the three parties together
\non 9.12.1981.\n<\/p>\n
    (7)\t Gautam\t Chand (RW 3) and the  complainant  Haradara
\nacted  in  interest and scoured the attachment\tof  property
\nwhich  was  the subject matter of an agreement\tto  sell  in
\nfavour of  Gautam Chand. The suit instituted in the name  of
\nthe  complainant Haradara was only for the benefit of Gautam
\nChand by reference to his interest in the property.
\n    (8) The appellant conveyed information of the settlement
\nof dispute by his note made on the docket. He drew a diagram
\nof  the location of residence of the respondent No. 2  Ashok
\nAdvocate.  (Ex. R-1A at page 14 Additional  Documents).\t The
\npapers were delivered to respondent No. 2 Ashok Advocate  by
\nGautam Chand (PW 3).\n<\/p>\n
    (9)\t After\tsatisfying himself, respondent No.  2  Ashok
\nadvocate  appeared  in Court on 10.12.81 and  filed  a\tMemo
\nprepared in his handwriting recording the fact of settlement
\nof  dispute  and seeking withdrawal of the suit.  The  Court
\npassed order dated 10.12.1981 dismissing the suit, O.S.\t No.
\n1965 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
    (10) Even though the plaintiff Haradara gained knowledge
\nof  the disposal of suit, he did not meet the appellant\t nor
\ndid he address him for over 1-1\/2 years until May, 1983.  He
\ndid not also immediately apply for the restoration of  suit.
\nAn application for restoration was filed on the last date of
\nlimitation  on 11.1.1982. The application Misc. 16  of\t1982
\nwas later allowed to be dismissed for default on  30.7.1982.
\nIt  was later sought to be revived by application Misc.\t No.
\n581  of 1982. Necessary orders were obtained  on  16.7.1988.
\nThus Misc. 16 of 1982 (Application for restoration of  suit)
\nis pending in Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
    On\ta  survey  of the legal landscape  in  the  area  of
\ndisciplinary proceedings this scenario emerges:
\n   (1)\tIn exercise of powers under section 35 contained  in
\nChapte\tV  entitled “conduct of Advocates”,  on\t receipt  of
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 369
\n a complaint against an Advocate (or suo motu) if the  State
\nBar Council has `reason to believe’ that any Advocate on its
\nrole has been guilty of “professional or other\tmisconduct”.
\nDisciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him.
\n    (2)\t Neither section 35 nor any other provision  of\t the
\nAct  defines  the  expression’\tlegal  misconduct’  or\t the
\nexpression `misconduct’ .\n<\/p>\n
    (3) The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar  Council
\nis  authorised to inflict punishment, including\t removal  of
\nhis  name from the rolls of the Bar Council  and  suspending
\nhim  from  practise  for a period deemed fit  by  it,  after
\ngiving the Advocate concerned and the ‘Advocate General’  of
\nthe State an opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t  While\t  under\t section  42(1)\t of  the   Act\t the
\nDisciplinary Committee has been conferred powers vested in a
\nCivil\tCourt  in  respect  of\tcertain\t matters   including
\nsummoning  and\tenforcing  Attendance  of  any\tperson\t and
\nexamining   him\t  on  oath,  the  Act  which   enjoins\t the
\nDisciplinary Committee to “afford an opportunity of hearing’
\n(Vide  Sec.  S)\t to  the Advocate  does\t not  prescribe\t the
\nprocedure to be followed at the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t The  procedure to be followed in an  Enquiry  under
\nSection\t 35  is outlined in Part VII of the Bar\t Council  of
\nIndia  Rules (1) made under the authority of section  60  of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
    (6) Rule 8(1) of the said Rules enjoins the Disciplinary
\nCommittee  to hear the concerned parties that is to say\t the
\ncomplainant and the concerned Advocate as also the  Attorney
\nGeneral or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General. It
\nalso  enjoins that if it is considered appropriate  to\ttake
\noral  evidence\tthe procedure of the trial of\tcivil  suits
\nshall as far as possible be followed (2).\n<\/p>\n
    At\tthis juncture it is appropriate to  articulate\tsome
\nbasic\tprinciples  which  must\t inform\t  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings  against  members  of the  legal  profession  in
\nproceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, read with
\nthe relevant Rules:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Published  in Gazette of India on September 6,  1975  in
\nPart III Section (pages 1671 to 1697).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 370\n<\/p>\n
    (i)\t essentially the proceedings are  quasi-criminal  in
\ncharacter  inasmuch  as a Member of the\t profession  can  be
\nvisited\t with penal consequences which affect his  right  to
\npractice  the profession as also his honour;  under  Section
\n35(3)(d)  of the Act, the name of the Advocate found  guilty
\nof professional or other misconduct can be removed from\t the
\nState Roll of Advocates. This extreme penalty is  equivalent
\nof death penalty which is in vogue in criminal jurisprudence
\nThe  Advocate on whom the penalty of his name being  removed
\nfrom  the roll of Advocate is imposed would be\tdeprived  of
\npractising the profession of his choice, would be robbed  of
\nhis  means of livelihood, would be stripped of the name\t and
\nhonour\tearned by him in the post and is liable to become  a
\nsocial\tapartheid. A disciplinary proceeding by a  statutory
\nbody  of the Members of the profession which is\t statutorily
\nempowered  to impose a punishment including a punishment  of
\nsuch immense proportions in quasi-criminal in character;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  as  a\t logical  corollary  it\t follows  that\t the
\nDisciplinary Committee empowered to conduct the enquiry\t and
\nto inflict the punishment on behalf of the body, in  forming
\nan  opinion  must be guided by the doctrine  of\t benefit  of
\ndoubt  and  is under an obligation to record  a\t finding  of
\nguilt  only upon being satisfied beyond\t  reasonable  doubt.
\nIt would be impermissible to reach a conclusion on the basis
\npreponderence  of  evidence  or on  the\t basis\tof  surmise,
\nconjucture  or suspicion. It will also be essential to\tcon-
\nsider the dimension regarding mens rea.\n<\/p>\n
    This  proposition  is  hardly open to  doubt  or  debate
\nparticularly  having regard to the view taken by this  Court
\nin  L.D. Jaisinghani v. Naraindas N. Punjubi,<\/a> [1976]  3\t SCR
\n354 wherein Ray, CJ., speaking for the Court has observed:\n<\/p>\n
    `In\t any  case.  we\t are  left  in\tdoubt  whether\t the
\ncomplainant’s  version. with which he had come forward\twith
\nconsiderable delay was really truthful. We think that, in  a
\ncase  of this nature, involving possible disbarring  of\t the
\nadvocate  concerned, the evidence should be of\ta  character
\nwhich\n<\/p>\n
    2. Rule 8(1) “The Disciplinary Committee shall hear\t the
\nAttorney  General or the Solicitor General of India  or\t the
\nAdvocate General, as the case may be or their Advocate,\t and
\nparties\t or their Advocate, if they desire to be heard,\t and
\ndetermine  the matter on documents and affidavits unless  it
\nis  of\tthe  opinion that it should be in  the\tinterest  of
\njustice\t to permit cross examination of the deponents or  to
\ntake  oral  evidence, in which case the\t procedure  for\t the
\ntrial of civil suits, shall as far as possible be followed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 371
\nshould\t leave\t no  reasonable\t doubt\tabout\tguilt.\t The
\nDisciplinary  Committee\t had not only  found  the  appellant
\nguilty but had disbarred him permanently.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   (Emphasis added).\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)  in  the  event of a charge  of  negligence  being
\nlevelled  against an Advocate, the question will have to  be
\ndecided\t whether  negligence  simpliciter  would  constitute
\nmisconduct. It would also have to be considered whether\t the
\nstandard expected from an Advocate would have to answer\t the
\ntest of a reasonably equipped prudent practitioner  carrying
\nreasonable  workload  A line will have to be  drawn  between
\ntolerable negligence and culpable negligence in the sense of
\nnegligence  Which can be treated as professional  misconduct
\nexposing  a  Member of the profession to punishment  in\t the
\ncourse\tof disciplinary proceedings. In forming the  opinion
\non this question the standards of professional\tconduct\t and
\netiquette  spelt  out in Chapter 2 of Part VI of  the  Rules
\ngoverning Advocates, framed under Section 60 (3) and Section
\n49(1)(g) of the Act, which form a part of the Bar Council of
\nIndia  Rules may be consulted. As indicated in the  preamble
\nof  the\t Rules,\t an Advocate shall,  at\t all  times  compose
\nhimself\t in a manner befitting his status as an\t Officer  of
\nthe  Court,  a\tprivileged member of  the  community  and  a
\ngentleman  bearing in mind what may be lawful and moral\t for
\none who is not a member of the bar may still be improper for
\nan  Advocate and that his conduct is required to conform  to
\nthe rules relating to the duty to the Court, the duty to the
\nclient, to the opponent, and the duty to the colleagues, not
\nonly in letter but also in spirit.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is in the light of these principles  the  Committee
\nwould  be  required to approach the question as\t regards  th
\nguilt  or  otherwise  of  an  Advocate\tin  the\t context  of
\nprofessional  misconduct levelled against him. In  doing  so
\napart  from  conforming to such procedure as may  have\tbeen
\noutlined in the Act or the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority
\nwould\tbe  expected  to  exercise  the\t power\t with\tfull
\nconsciousness  and awareness of the paramount  consideration
\nregarding principles of natural justice and fair play.
\n    The State Bar Council, after calling for the comments of
\nthe  appellant in the context of the complaint,\t straightway
\nproceeded to  record the evidence of the parties. No  charge
\nwas  framed  specifying\t the  nature  and  content  of\t the
\nprofessional  misconduct attributed to the   appellant.\t Nor
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 372
\nwere   any  issues  framed  or\tpoints\t for   determination
\nformulated. The Disciplinary Committee straightway proceeded
\nto  record  evidence.  As the case could  not  be  concluded
\nwithin\tthe  prescribed\t time limit the matter\tcame  to  be
\ntransferred  to\t the Bar Council of India  which  has  heard
\narguments and rendered the order under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The questions which have surfaced are:\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t Whether a specific charge should have\tbeen  framed
\napprising  the appellant of the true nature and\t content  of
\nthe professional misconduct ascribed to him?\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Whether  the doctrine of benefit of doubt  and\t the
\nneed for establishing the basic allegations were present  in
\nthe  mind  of the Disciplinary Authority  in  recording\t the
\nfinding of guilt or in determining the nature and extent  of
\nthe punishment inflicted on him?\n<\/p>\n
    (3) Whether in the absence of the charge and finding  of
\ndishonesty against him the appellant could be held guilty of
\nprofessional  misconduct even on the assumption that he\t had
\nacted on the instructions of a person not authorised to\t act
\non  behalf of his client if he was acting in good faith\t and
\nin  a bona fide manner. Would it amount to lack of  prudence
\nor   nonculpable   negligence\tor   would   it\t  constitute
\nprofessional misconduct?\n<\/p>\n
    Now\t so far as the procedure followed by the  State\t Bar
\nCouncil\t at the Enquiry against the appellant, is  concerned
\nit appears that in order to enable the concerned Advocate to
\ndefend himself properly, an appropriate specific charge\t was
\nrequired to be framed. No doubt the Act does not outline the
\nprocedure  and the Rules do not prescribe the framing  of  a
\ncharge.\t But  then even in a departmental proceeding  in  an
\nenquiry\t against  an employee, a charge\t is  always  framed.
\nSurely\tan  Advocate  whose honour and\tright  to  earn\t his
\nlivelihood are at stake can expect from his own professional
\nbrethern.  what an employee expects from his employer?\tEven
\nif  the\t rules are silent, the paramount  and  overshadowing
\nconsiderations\tof  fairness would demand the framing  of  a
\ncharge. In a disciplinary proceeding initiated at the  level
\nof this Court even though the Supreme Court Rules did not so
\nprescribe, in re: Shri `M’ an Advocate of the Supreme  Court
\nof  India   [1956]  SCR page 811(814) this  Court  framed  a
\ncharge after making these observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 373
\n    We\ttreated\t the enquiry in Chambers  as  a\t preliminary
\nenquiry and heard arguments on both sides with reference  to
\nthe matter of that enquiry. We came to conclusion that\tthis
\nwas  not a case for discharge at that stage. We\t accordingly
\nreframed the charges framed by our learned brother, Bhagwati
\nJ., and added a fresh charge. No objection has been taken to
\nthis  course.  But  it is as well to mention  that,  in\t our
\nopinion, the terms of Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court
\nRules  do  not\tpreclude  us  from  adopting  this   course,
\nincluding  the\treframing  of, or  adding  to,\tthe  charges
\nspecified in the original summons, where the material at the
\npreliminary  enquiry justifies the same. The  fresh  enquiry
\nbefore\tus  in\tCourt has proceeded with  reference  to\t the
\nfollowing charges as reframed and added to by us.”\n<\/p>\n
    It would be extremely difficult for an Advocate facing a
\ndisciplinary proceeding to effectively defend himself in the
\nabsence\t of  a charge framed as a result of  application  of
\nmind to the allegations and to the question as regards\twhat
\nparticular   elements  constituted  a  specified   head\t  of
\nprofessional misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t point arising in the context of the non-framing  of
\nissues has also significance. As discussed earlier Rule 8(1)
\nenjoins\t that “the procedure for the trial of  Civil  suits,
\nshall  as  far\tas possible be followed.”  Framing  of\t the
\nissues based on the pleadings as in a Civil suit would be of
\nimmense\t utility. The controversial matters and\t substantial
\nquestions would be identified and the attention focussed  on
\nthe  real  and\tsubstantial factual  and  legal\t matters  in
\ncontest.  The  parties would then become aware of  the\treal
\nnature and content of the matters in issue and would come to
\nknow  (l) on whom the burden rests (2) what evidence  should
\nbe  adduced to prove or disprove any matter (3) to what\t end
\ncross  examination  and\t evidence  in  rebuttal\t should\t  be
\ndirected. When such a procedure is not adopted there  exists
\ninherent  danger  of miscarriage of justice  on\t account  of
\nvirtual denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case of the
\nother  side.  We wish the State Bar  Council  had  initially
\nframed\ta charge and later on framed issues arising  out  of
\nthe  pleadings for the sake of fairness and for the sake  of
\nbringing into forefront the real controversy.
\n    In\tthe light of the foregoing discussion the  questions
\narising\t in  the present appeal may now to be  examined.  In
\nsubstance  the charge against the appellant was that he\t had
\nwithdrawn  a suit as settled without the  instructions\tfrom
\nthe complainant. It was not the case of the complainant that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 374
\nthe appellant had any dishonest motive or that he had  acted
\nin  the matter by reason of lack of probity or by reason  of
\nhaving\tbeen  won  over\t by  the  other\t side  for  monetary
\nconsiderations\tor otherwise. The version of  the  appellant
\nwas  that  the\tsuit  which  had  been\twithdrawn  had\tbeen
\ninstituted in a particular set of circumstances and that the
\ncomplainant  had  been\tintroduced  to\tthe  appellant\t for
\npurposes of the institution of the suit by an old client  of
\nhis  viz.  RW  3 Gautam Chand.\tThe  appellant\twas  already
\nhandling, a case on behalf of RW 3 Gautam Chand against RW 4
\nAnantharaju.  The decision to file a suit on behalf  of\t the
\ncomplainant  against  RW  4 Anantharaju\t was  taken  in\t the
\npresence  of RW 3 Gautam Chand. It was at the  instance\t and
\ninspiration  of\t RW 3 Gautam Chand that the  suit  had\tbeen
\ninstituted by the complainant, but really he was the nominee
\nof Gautam Chand and that the complainant himself had no real
\nclaim on his own. It transpires from the records that it was
\nadmitted by the complainant that he was not maintaining\t any
\naccount\t books in regard to the business and he was  not  an
\nIncome-tax  assessee.  In addition,the\tcomplainant  (PW  1)
\nHaradara  himself has admitted in his evidence that  it\t was
\nGautam\tChand  who had introduce him to the  appellant,\t and
\nthat he was in fact taken to the office of the appellant for
\nfilling\t the  said suit, by Gautam Chand. It was  this\tsuit
\nwhich  was  withdrawn  by the appellant. Of  course  it\t was
\nwithdrawn without any written instruction from the defendant
\nagainst\t whom  he  had filed the suit for  recovery  of\t Rs.
\n30,000 and odd through Gautam Chand and that he did not know
\nthe  defendant intimately or closely. He also admitted\tthat
\nthe  cheques  used to be passed in favour of the  party\t and
\nthat  he was not entitled to the entire amount. He  used  to
\nget only commission.\n<\/p>\n
    Since  even on the admission of the complainant  himself
\nhe was taken to the office of the appellant for\t instituting
\nthe  suit,  by\tRW  3 Gautam Chand, and\t old  client  of  th
\nappellant whose dispute with the defendant against whom\t the
\ncomplainant had filed the suit existed at the material\ttime
\nand  was being handled by the appellant. The defence of\t the
\nappellant   that   he  had  withdrawn  the   suit   in\t the
\ncircumstances mentioned by him required to be considered  in
\nthe  light of his admissions. The defence of  the  appellant
\nbeing\tthat   the  suit  was  withdrawn  under\t  the\toral
\ninstructions  of  the complainant in the presence  of  RW  3
\nGautam Chand and RW 4 Anantharaju and inasmuch as RWs 3\t and
\n4 supported the version of the appellant on oath, the matter
\nwas  required  to be examined in this  background.  Assuming
\nthat  the evidence of the  appellant corroborated by  RWs  3
\nand  4 in regard to the presence of the complainant was\t not
\nconsidered  acceptable, the question would yet arise  as  to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 375
\nwhether\t the withdrawal on the part of the appellant as\t per
\nthe oral instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand who had taken the
\ncomplainant to the appellant for instituting the suit, would
\namount to professional misconduct. Whether the appellant had
\nacted in a bona fide manner under the honest belief that  RW
\n3 Gautam Chand was giving the instructions on behalf of\t the
\ncomplainant required to be considered. If he had done so  in
\na   bona  fide\tand  honest  belief  would   it\t  constitute
\nprofessional  misconduct, particularly having regard to\t the
\nfact  that  nO\tallegation  regarding  corrupt\tmotive\t was
\nattributed or established? Here it has to be mentioned\tthat
\nthe appellant had acted in an open manner in the sense\tthat
\nhe had in his own hand made endorsement for withdrawing\t the
\nsuit as settled and sent the brief to his junior  colleague.
\nIf  the\t appellant  had\t any  oblique  motive  or  dishonest
\nintention. he would not have made the endorsement in his own
\nhand.\n<\/p>\n
    No doubt Rule 19 contained in Section 2 captioned  `Duty
\nto  the clients’ provides that an Advocate shall not act  on
\nthe instructions of any person other than his client or\t his
\nauthorised  agent.  If, therefore, the appellant  had  acted
\nunder  the  instructions  of RW 3  Gautam  Chand  bona\tfide
\nbelieving   that  he  was  the\tauthorised  agent  to\tgive
\ninstructions  on behalf of the client, would  it  constitute
\nprofessional  misconduct?  Even if RW 3 was not in  fact  an
\nauthorised  agent of the complainant, but if  the  appellant
\nbona  fide  believed him to be the authorised  agent  having
\nregard\tto  the circumstances in which the suit came  to  be
\ninstituted, would it constitute professional misconduct?  Or
\nwould it amount to only an imprudent and unwise act or\teven
\na  negligent  act on the part of the appellant?\t These\twere
\nquestions which directly arose to which the Committee  never
\naddressed  itself.  There is also nothing to show  that\t the
\nDisciplinary  Committee has recorded a finding on the  facts
\nand the conclusion as regards the guilt in full awareness of
\nthe  doctrine of benefit of doubt and the need to  establish
\nthe facts and the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As has been
\nmentioned earlier, no charge has been formulated and framed,
\nno issues have been framed. The attention of the parties was
\nnot  focussed on what were the real issues.   The  appellant
\nwas   not   specifically  told\tas   to\t  what\t constituted
\nprofessional misconduct and what was the real content of the
\ncharge regarding the professional misconduct against him.
\n    In the order under appeal the Disciplinary Committee has
\naddressed itself to three questions viz.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 376\n<\/p>\n
    (i) Whether the complainant was the person who entrusted
\nthe  brief  to\tthe  appellant and  whether  the  brief\t was
\nentrusted by the complainant to the appellant?\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  Whether  report  of settlement  was  made  without
\ninstruction or knowledge of the complainant?\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)  Who was responsible for reporting settlement\t and
\ninstructions of the complainant?\n<\/p>\n
    In\ttaking\tthe  view that the  appellant  had  done  so
\nprobably with a view to clear the cloud of title of RW 3  as
\nreflected  in paragraph 22 quoted herein,  the\tDisciplinary
\nCommittee  was\tnot  only  making  recourse  to\t conjucture.
\nsurmise\t and presumption on the basis of suspicion but\talso
\nattributing  to\t the appellant a motive which was  not\teven
\nattributed by the complainant and of which the appellant was
\nnot given any notice to enable him to meet the charge:\n<\/p>\n
    “It is not possible to find out as to what made PW 2  to
\nhave  done  like  that. As already  pointed  out  the  house
\nproperty which was under attachment had been purchased by RW
\n3 during the subsistence of the attachment. Probably with  a
\nview  to clear the cloud of title of RW 3, PW 2\t might\thave
\ndone  it. This is only our suspicion. Whatever it might\t be,
\nit is clear that RW 2 had acted illegally in directing RW  l
\nto report settlement.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour  opinion  the appellant has\t not  been  afforded
\nreasonable and fair opportunity of showing cause inasmuch as
\nthe  appellant was not apprised of the exact content of\t the
\nprofessional  misconduct attributed to him and was not\tmade
\naware  of the precise charge he was required to\t rebut.\t The
\nconclusion  reached  by the Disciplinary  Committee  in\t the
\nimpugned  order further shows that in recording the  finding
\nof  facts on the three questions, the applicability  of\t the
\ndoctrine  of benefit of doubt and need for establishing\t the
\nfacts beyond reasonable doubt were not realised. Nor did the
\nDisciplinary  Committee consider the question as to  whether
\nthe  facts  established that the appellant was\tacting\twith
\nbona  fides  or with mala fides, whether the  appellant\t was
\nacting\twith any oblique or dishonest motive, whether  there
\nwas  any mens rea, whether the facts constituted  negligence
\nand  if so whether it constituted culpable  negligence.\t Nor
\nhas  the Disciplinary Committee considered the\tquestion  as
\nregards\t the  quantum  of punishment in\t the  light  of\t the
\naforesaid  considerations  and\tthe  exact  nature  of\t the
\nprofessional  misconduct established against the  appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 377
\nThe  impugned  order passed by the  Disciplinary  Committee,
\ntherefore  cannot be sustained. Since we do not consider  it
\nappropriate  to\t examine  the matter on merits\ton  our\t own
\nwithout\t  the  benefit\tof  the\t finding  recorded  by\t the
\nDisciplinary  Committee\t of the apex judicial  body  of\t the
\nlegal  profession, we consider it appropriate to  remit\t the
\nmatter\tback to the Disciplinary Committee. As\tobserved  by
\nthis  Court in O.N. Mohindroo v. The District  Judge,  Delhi
\nand  Anr., Supreme Court Bar Association,<\/a> [1971] 3 SCC 5  in
\nparagraph  23 quoted hereinbelow, we have no doubt that\t the
\nDisciplinary Committee will approach the matter with an open
\nmind:\n<\/p>\n
    “From  this\t it follows that questions  of\tprofessional
\nconduct are as open as charges of cowardice against Generals
\nfor  reconsideration of the conviction of persons  convicted
\nof crimes. Otherwise how could the Hebron brothers get their
\nconviction  set aside after Charles Peace confessed  to\t the
\ncrime for which they were charged and held guilty?”
\n    We must explain why we consider it appropriate to  remit
\nthe matter back to the Bar Council of India. This matter  is
\none pertaining to the ethics of the profession which the law
\nhas  entrusted\tto  the Bar Council of India.  It  is  their
\nopinion\t of a case which must receive due weight because  in
\nthe words of Hidayatullah, CJ, in Mohindroo’s case:\n<\/p>\n
    “This  matter  is one of the ethics\t of  the  profession
\nwhich the law has entrusted to the Bar Council of India.  It
\nis their opinion of a case which must receive due weight.”
\n    It appears to us that the Bar Council of India must have
\nan  opportunity\t to  examine the very  vcxed  and  sensitive
\nquestion which has arisen in the present matter with  utmost
\ncare   and  consideration.  the\t question  being  of   great
\nimportance  for the entire profession. We are not  aware  of
\nany  other matter where the apex body of the profession\t was
\nrequired  to  consider\twhether\t the bona  fide\t act  of  an
\nAdvocate  who in good faith acted under the instructions  of
\nsomeone closely connected with his client and entertained  a
\nbona  fide  belief that the instructions  were\tbeing  given
\nunder  the  authority  of his client,  would  be  guilty  of
\nmisconduct.  It\t will  be for the Bar Council  of  India  to
\nconsider  whether it would constitute an imprudent  act,  an
\nunwise\tact.  a\t negligent act\tor  whether  it\t constituted
\nnegligence  and if so a culpable negligence, or\t whether  it
\nconstituted  a\tprofessional  misconduct  deserving   severe
\npunishment, even when it was not established or atleast not
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 378
\nestablished  beyond  reasonable\t doubt\tthat  the  concerned
\nAdvocate was acting with any oblique or dishonest motive  or
\nwith mala fides. This question will have to be determined in
\nthe light of the evidence and the surrounding  circumstances
\ntaking into account the doctrine of benefit of doubt and the
\nneed  to record a finding only upon being  satisfied  beyond
\nreasonable  doubt.  In the facts and  circumstances  of\t the
\npresent\t case, it will also be necessary to  re-examine\t the
\nversion\t of  the complainant in the light of  the  foregoing
\ndiscussion  keeping  in\t mind  the  admission  made  by\t the
\ncomplainant  that  he  was  not\t maintaining  any  books  of
\naccounts  and he was not an Income-tax assessee and  yet  he
\nwas  the  real plaintiff in the suit for Rs.30,000  and\t odd
\ninstituted by him, and in the light of the admission that it
\nwas  RW\t 3  Gautam  Chand who  had  introduced\thim  to\t the
\nappellant and that he was in fact taken to the office of the
\nappellant,  for filing the suit, by RW 3  Gautam-Chand.\t The
\naforesaid  question would arise even if the  conclusion\t was
\nreached that the complainant himself was not present and had
\nnot  given instructions and that the appellant had acted  on
\nthe  instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand who had\tbrought\t the
\ncomplainant  to the appellant’s office for  instituting\t the
\nsuit  and  who was a close associate   of  the\tcomplainant.
\nSince all these aspects have not been examined at the  level
\nof  the Bar Council, and since the matter raises a  question
\nof  principle  of considerable importance  relating  to\t the
\nethics of the profession which the law has entrusted to\t the
\nBar Council of India, it would not be proper for this  Court
\nto  render an opinion on this matter without the benefit  of
\nthe  opinion of the Bar Council of India which\twill  accord
\nclose  consideration  to  this matter in the  light  of\t the
\nperspective  unfolded  in this judgment both on law  and  on
\nfacts.\tWe are reminded of the high degree of fairness\twith
\nwhich  the  Bar Council of India had  acted  in\t Mohindroo’s
\ncase. The Advocate concerned was suspended from practice for
\nfour  years.  The  Bar Council\thad  dismissed\tthe  appeal.
\nSupreme\t Court\thad  dismissed the  Special  Leave  Petition
\nsummarily.  And\t yet the whole matter was  reviewed  at\t the
\ninstance of the Bar Council and this Court was persuaded  to
\ngrant the review. A passage extracted from Mohindroo’s\tcase
\ndeserves to be quoted in this connection:\n<\/p>\n
    “37.  We find some unusual circumstances facing us.\t The
\nentire Bar of India are of the opinion that the case was not
\nas satisfactorily proved as one should be and we are also of
\nthe same opinion. All processes of the Court are intended to
\nsecure justice and one such process is the power of  review.
\nNo  doubt  frivolous  reviews  are  to\tbe  discouraged\t and
\ntechnical  rules have been devised to prevent  persons\tfrom
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   PG NO 379
\nreopening  decided cases. But as the disciplinary  committee
\nthemselves   observed\tthere  should  not   be\t  too\tmuch
\ntechnicality  where professional honour is involved  and  if
\nthere is a manifest wrong done, it is never too late to undo
\nthe  wrong.  This Court possesses under the  Constitution  a
\nspecial power of review and further may pass any order to do
\nfull  and  effective justice. This Court is  moved  to\ttake
\naction and the Bar Council of India and the Bar\t Association
\nof  the\t Supreme  Court are  unanimous\tthat  the  appellant
\ndeserves to have the order disbarring him from practice\t set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave therefore no doubt that upon the  matter  being
\nremitted  to the Bar Council of India it will be dealt\twith
\nappropriately in the light of the aforesaid perspective.  We
\naccordingly  allow this appeal, set aside the order  of\t the
\nBar  Council  in so far as the appellant  is  concerned\t and
\nremit  the matter to the Bar Council of India. We.  however,
\nwish  to  make\tit clear that it will not  be  open  to\t the
\ncomplainant  to\t amend the complaint or to add\tany  further
\nallegation.  We\t also  clarify\tthat  the  evidence  already
\nrecorded  will\tcontinue to form part of the record  and  it
\nwill be open to the Bar Council of India to hear the  matter
\nafresh\ton  the\t same evidence. It  is\tunderstood  that  an
\napplication  for  restoration  of the suit  which  has\tbeen
\ndismissed  for default in the City Civil Court at  Bangalore
\nhas been made by the complainant and is still pending before
\nthe  Court. It will be open to the Bar Council of  lndia  to
\nconsider  whether  the\thearing\t of the\t matter\t has  to  be
\ndeferred  till the application for restoration\tis  disposed
\nof.   The  Bar\tCouncil\t of  India  may\t  give\t appropriate
\nconsideration to all these questions.\n<\/p>\n
    We further direct that in case the judgment rendered  by
\nthis  Court or any part thereof is reported in Law  Journals
\nor published elsewhere, the name of the appellant shall\t not
\nbe  mentioned  because\tthe matter is  still  subjudice\t and
\nfairness demands that the name should not be specified.\t The
\nmatter can be referred to as an Advocate v. The Bar  Council<\/a>
\nor in re. an Advocate without naming the appellant.
\n    The\t  appeal  is  disposed\tof  accordingly.  No   order
\nregarding costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y. Lal\t\t\t\t  Appeal disposed of.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 245, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 361 Author: M Thakkar Bench: Thakkar, M.P. (J) PETITIONER: AN ADVOCATE Vs. RESPONDENT: B.B. HARADARA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/09\/1988 BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAn Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\"},\"wordCount\":6218,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\",\"name\":\"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988","datePublished":"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988"},"wordCount":6218,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988","name":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T15:42:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/an-advocate-vs-b-b-haradara-ors-on-29-september-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"An Advocate vs B.B. Haradara & Ors on 29 September, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36364\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}