1922 (1) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Professional misconduct of a pleader under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879

Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
The case involved a reference by the District Judge of Dacca concerning a pleader, Tarini Mohan Barari, who was found guilty of professional misconduct under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. The pleader had refused to appear before the Court to explain a defective plaint he had filed, leading to the plaint being ordered to be returned. The pleader's conduct was deemed as prejudicial to the interests of the client, who had to appear in Court himself due to the pleader's refusal.

2. Allegations and Charges:
The pleader was charged with insulting and highly improper conduct towards the Court, failing to appear on behalf of the Plaintiff, and engaging in grossly improper conduct as per the Legal Practitioners Act. The notice served on the pleader outlined the specific charges against him, highlighting his refusal to cooperate with the Court's directives.

3. Pleader's Defense and Contention:
The pleader filed a statement contending that the proceedings against him were part of a series of actions aimed at pressuring pleaders who were unwilling to appear in Court due to perceived ill-treatment. He referenced an incident involving another pleader, Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, to support his defense.

4. Resolution and Boycott by Bar Association:
Following an incident involving Babu Pasupati Bose in the Subordinate Judge's Court, the Bar Association passed a resolution urging members not to appear before him. This resolution led to the pleader and others refusing to appear before the Subordinate Judge, citing disrespect and ill-treatment towards members of the Bar.

5. Court's Decision and Warning:
The Court, after considering the expressions of regret from the pleaders' representatives, decided not to take further action on the references. However, the Court emphasized the seriousness of the pleaders' conduct, highlighting their duty to cooperate with the Court and uphold professional obligations. A warning was issued to prevent any recurrence of similar conduct, with a clear indication of potential serious consequences if such behavior persisted.

6. Future Course of Action:
The Court suggested that pending proceedings in lower courts related to the matter could be dropped if an expression of regret was made by the concerned parties. It was made clear that the pleaders must resume work in the Subordinate Judge's Court if they wished to continue practicing in their profession.

7. Conclusion:
The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding professional standards and cooperating with the Court for the proper administration of justice. While no immediate action was taken against the pleaders, a strong warning was issued to deter any repetition of misconduct, with a reminder of potential consequences if the behavior persisted.