D.P.Chadha v.

Triyugi Narayan Mishra

Identification: AIR 2001 SC 457

Quorum: R.C.Lahoti & K.G.Balakrishna

Facts

While the preceding in a civil suit were going on in the civil suit at Jaipur, the
complainant Mr.Mishra was busy with the election in U.P. and was not available in Jaipur
for a long period. Sri D.P.Chadha, appellant had a blank vakalatnama and a paper both signed
by the respondent given to him as his advocate in 1st week of October 1993. The
vakalatnama was used for engaging Shri.Anil Sharma locate of on behalf of the respondent.
On 17 November, 1993 Shri Chadha was present in the court though the appellant was not
present when adjournment was taken from the court stating that there was a possibility of an
amicable settlement between the parties, where upon the hearing was postponed to 14th
December1994 for rewarding compromise or framing issue.

On 20, November1993, Shri Rajesh Jain, and Anil Sharma appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff and defendant filed a compromise petition along with a receipt by the complainant
stating that he has received Rupees 5,000,00 as a compensation for the damages to the School
building. The trial Court directed the parties to remain personally present before the court on
17 December 1993, to verify the compromise. Instead of complying with the order, Sri
Rajesh Jain advocate file a Misc. civil application raising a plea that the trial court was not
justified in directing personal appearance of the parties. The Appeal was dismissed. The
preceding officer of the trial court was transferred and his successor received an application
by Shri Suresh Jain, advocate stating to record the compromise and their bye pass a decree.
On 23 August 1994, the judge decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Shri Mishra
moved to state bar council complaining of the professional misconduct of the three advocates
who had colluded to bring false compromise. The disciplinary committee found that it was
advocated D.P.Chadha who gave the following papers to Anil Sharma, and asked him to
obtain degree. The committee held Chadha Guilty of professional misconduct and thus
suspended him for 5 years. Advocate Chadha Appealed to the bar council of India which
without giving the appeal appellant hearing enhanced the punishment to a period of 10 years.
from this order the appellant preferred to appeal the supreme court .
Issues

1) Whether appellant has committed professional misconduct or not ?

2) Was the bar council of India justified in enhancing the punishment without giving the
appellant an opportunity of being Heard and to file a reply thereby

Judgement

The sentence awarded by the State Bar Council was upheld and restored thereby
sitting aside the award passed by the bar council of India.

Reasoning

The appellant was guilty of professional misconduct but since the bar council of India
did not follow the principle of natural justice hence its order was set aside and so the order of
the State bar council was restored.