1956 (10) TMI 31 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Shri M intimated Attar Singh about the withdrawal of the unspent balance of printing charges? Whether Shri M intimated Attar Singh that any fee remained due and made any demand in that behalf? Whether Shri M was justified in retaining the amount towards fees without lodging a bill for taxation against his client? Whether, for withdrawing the unspent balance from the Punjab High Court, Shri M had the requisite authority? Whether on these facts Shri M is guilty of professional misconduct? Held that - Appeal dismissed. Shri M is guilty of professional misconduct. We direct that he should be suspended from practice for a period of two years. The evidence shows that when in 1954 Attar Singh enquired of Shri M he denied knowledge of the unspent balance and that when confronted with the letter received from the Punjab High Court he admitted receipt and demanded fees but evaded the situation without fairly and frankly facing it.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the summons under Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether Shri 'M' had the requisite authority to withdraw the unspent balance from the Punjab High Court.
3. Whether Shri 'M' was justified in retaining the unspent balance without intimation to the client or lodging a bill for taxation.
4. Whether Shri 'M' is guilty of professional misconduct.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Summons:
The objection was raised regarding the validity of the summons issued under Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, stating that the enquiry should follow the summons as the first step. The enquiry in Chambers was questioned since the statements of witnesses were not on oath. The Court, after discussion, decided to refrain from a decision on the preliminary objection and directed a fresh enquiry in open Court with formulated charges. The Court adopted a procedure similar to that in a warrant case under the amended section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Authority to Withdraw Unspent Balance:
The Court examined whether Shri 'M' had the authority to withdraw the unspent balance of Rs. 242-1-9 from the Punjab High Court. Shri 'M' claimed specific oral authority from the complainant's relation, which he failed to prove satisfactorily. The Court found his evidence on this part of the case highly unsatisfactory and concluded that he did not have specific oral authority. However, the Court noted that the High Court issued the refund to Shri 'M' without requiring further written power or authority, implying the High Court believed he had the requisite authority. The Court decided not to take serious notice of this charge.

3. Retention of Unspent Balance:
The Court considered whether Shri 'M' was justified in retaining the unspent balance without intimation to the client or lodging a bill for taxation. The evidence showed that Shri 'M' did not inform Attar Singh about the refund, nor did he make any written demand for fees. The Court found that Shri 'M' retained the amount without the client's knowledge or consent and without lodging a bill for taxation. The Court concluded that Shri 'M' appropriated the amount without any demand for fees or lodging a bill for taxation, constituting professional misconduct.

4. Professional Misconduct:
The Court held that Shri 'M' was guilty of professional misconduct. The Court emphasized that an Agent or Advocate must treat themselves as a trustee for the client in respect of the client's money. Even if an Agent has a lien on such money, they must give reasonable intimation of the fact and exercise of the lien. The retention and appropriation of the money without intimation to the client and without sending a bill or applying for taxation was deemed professional misconduct. The Court directed that Shri 'M' be suspended from practice for a period of two years.

Conclusion:
The Court found Shri 'M' guilty of professional misconduct for retaining the unspent balance of Rs. 242-1-9 without the client's knowledge or consent and without lodging a bill for taxation. The Court directed that Shri 'M' be suspended from practice for two years.

← Previous Next →