2000 (12) TMI 836 - SC - Companies Law

Appeal to Bar Council of India - Punishment of advocate for misconduct - Held that - Appeal party allowed. The finding that the appellant is guilty of professional misconduct is upheld; but the sentence awarded by the Rajasthan State Bar Council suspending the appellant from practice for a period of five years is upheld and restored. Accordingly, the order of the Bar Council of India, only to the extent of enhancing the punishment, is set aside. No order as to the costs. The Bar Council of India, by its order under appeal, directed notices to be issued to Shri Rajesh Jain and Shri Anil Sharma, Advocates, respectively, for initiating proceedings for professional misconduct and for enhancement of punishment.

Issues Involved:
1. Professional misconduct by advocates.
2. Fabrication of compromise petition.
3. Misuse of blank vakalatnama and blank paper.
4. Resistance to trial court's order for personal appearance.
5. Enhancement of punishment by Bar Council of India.
6. Procedural fairness and natural justice.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Professional Misconduct by Advocates:
The appellant, Shri D.P. Chadha, Advocate, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Rajasthan State Bar Council, resulting in a suspension from practice for five years. The Bar Council of India not only dismissed his appeal but also enhanced the suspension to ten years. The misconduct involved fabricating a compromise petition using a blank vakalatnama and blank paper signed by the complainant, Shri Triyugi Narain Mishra, without his knowledge.

2. Fabrication of Compromise Petition:
Upasana Construction (P.) Ltd. filed an ejectment suit against the complainant, who was running a school in the tenanted premises. During the complainant's absence due to election duties, the appellant used the blank signed documents to fabricate a compromise petition, resulting in a decree for eviction. The trial court's proceedings showed deliberate attempts by the advocates to avoid the complainant's appearance and prevent him from learning about the compromise.

3. Misuse of Blank Vakalatnama and Blank Paper:
The appellant was in possession of a blank vakalatnama and blank paper signed by the complainant, which were used to engage Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the complainant and to file the fabricated compromise petition. The complainant was unaware of the compromise, and the blank documents were used to create a false scenario leading to a decree.

4. Resistance to Trial Court's Order for Personal Appearance:
The trial court directed the personal appearance of the parties to verify the compromise. The appellant resisted this order, arguing that the presence of the advocate was sufficient. The trial court suspected the conduct of the counsel and insisted on the personal appearance of the defendant. The appellant's resistance to this order was seen as a deliberate attempt to prevent the complainant from learning about the compromise.

5. Enhancement of Punishment by Bar Council of India:
The Bar Council of India enhanced the appellant's suspension from five to ten years. The enhancement was challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with natural justice, as the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court found that the Bar Council of India should have issued a specific notice to the appellant about the proposed enhancement and provided an opportunity for a hearing.

6. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice. The Bar Council of India was required to give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement of punishment. The Court found that this requirement was not met, and thus, the enhancement of punishment was set aside, restoring the original suspension period of five years.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct against the appellant but set aside the enhanced punishment by the Bar Council of India due to procedural lapses. The original suspension of five years imposed by the Rajasthan State Bar Council was restored. The Court also directed the continuation of proceedings against other involved advocates, Shri Rajesh Jain and Shri Anil Sharma, for their roles in the misconduct.

← Previous Next →