1963 (1) TMI 51 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Gross negligence by the Advocate in filing the bill of costs.
2. Professional misconduct and other misconduct by the Advocate.
3. Appropriate penalty for the Advocate's misconduct.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Gross Negligence by the Advocate in Filing the Bill of Costs:
The Advocate, representing the Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath of Puri, was required to file the bill of costs and vouchers within six weeks from the date of judgment as per O. XL r. 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. Despite being aware of this requirement, the Advocate delayed filing the bill of costs until May 19, 1959, well beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal found that the delay was due to the Advocate's gross negligence, as he failed to take timely action despite receiving Rs. 60/- from his client to meet the necessary expenses for presenting the bill of costs. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not justified by the Advocate's claims of needing information from the High Court lawyer or obtaining a receipt from the senior counsel, as these were not valid reasons for the delay.

2. Professional Misconduct and Other Misconduct by the Advocate:
The Tribunal examined whether the Advocate's conduct amounted to professional misconduct or other misconduct within the meaning of O. IV of the Rules. The Tribunal found that the Advocate's actions, including the gross delay in filing the bill of costs, failure to respond to the client's inquiries, and unjustified demand for Rs. 200/- from the client's successor, constituted professional misconduct and other misconduct. The Tribunal emphasized that the Advocate's conduct was contrary to honesty, good morals, and professional ethics, rendering him unworthy to be a member of the legal profession. The Tribunal's findings were based on the principle that the legal profession is an honorable one, and any conduct that undermines the integrity and trust placed in legal professionals must be addressed severely.

3. Appropriate Penalty for the Advocate's Misconduct:
The Supreme Court considered the appropriate penalty for the Advocate's misconduct. The Court noted that cases of professional misconduct are rare but must be dealt with severely to maintain the integrity and traditions of the Bar. The Court rejected the plea for leniency and decided that the Advocate's name should be removed from the rolls for five years. Additionally, the Advocate was directed to pay the respondent's costs of the enquiry before the Tribunal and the hearing before the Court. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the confidence and faith of the public in the fairness of the administration of justice, which relies on the integrity of both the Judges and the Bar.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the Advocate was guilty of gross negligence, professional misconduct, and other misconduct. The Advocate's name was ordered to be removed from the rolls for five years, and he was directed to pay the costs incurred by the respondent. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining high ethical standards and diligence in the legal profession to ensure the proper administration of justice.