LEADING CASES ON PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

1. Noratanmal Chaurasia vs. M.R. Murli (2004) 5 SCC 689​- the Supreme court
has held that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but
misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to
lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline
which however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission,
whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.
2. Narain Pandey vs. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC 435 - ​An advocate who
is found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing false
and fictitious compromises on behalf of the client without any authority deserves
punishment proportionate to the degree of misconduct. Such punishment must
meet two objectives- deterrence and correction. The Court referred to the
Preamble of the BCI Rules- Chapter II while adjudging the misconduct.
3. Shambhuram Yadav vs. Hanumandas Khatri AIR 2001 SC 2509- ​The
lawyer suggested that his client give bribe to the judge to get the suit decided in
his favour. The Supreme Court held the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct.
(Violation of Rule 3 and 4 of BCI Rules- - Chapter II)
4. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kurapati Satyanarayana AIR 2003 SC
178​- Lawyer misappropriated his client’s money. BCI acquitted him on the
ground that there was no intention. Supreme Court held this decision of BCI to be
“unfounded and perverse” and lacking the serious thought which was required to
be given to the disciplinary committee of the BCI in the discharge of quasi-judicial
functions while probing into such grave instances. (Rule 23 and 25 of the BCI
Rules- Chapter II)
5. Harish Chandra Tiwari vs. Baiju 2002 (2) SCC 67- ​Misappropriation of
client’s money is a grave misconduct to be committed by a legal practitioner, and
must be punished accordingly under the Advocates Act. (Rule 23 and 25 of the
BCI Rules- Chapter II)
6. Smt. Siya Bai vs. Sita Ram ​BCI​ ​Tr. Case No. 8/1987​- The advocate withdrew
the decretal amounts paid and did not make the payment to the client, in
violation of Rule 27 of the BCI Rules on Professional Ethics. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India ordered the advocate to refund the money
to the complainant along with the 10% interest per annum and also ordered
suspension of advocate for a period of one year.
7. In Re: An Advocate vs. Unknown AIR 1961 Ker 209- It is the imperative
duty of the counsel on receipt of the client’s decretal money, to inform the client
thereof and pay him without the amount under receipt without any delay. The
Kerala High Court suspended the respondent for a period of six months, for
non-fulfillment of this duty under Rule 27 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
8. Bar Council of Maharashtra vs. V. Dabholkar and others AIR 1976 SC 242-
The Bar Council functions in a dual capacity, one as the prosecutor through its
Executive Committee and the other quasi-judicial performed through its
Disciplinary Committee. Hence, being the prosecutor, the State Bar Council would
be an ‘aggrieved person’ and therefore, the appeal under section 38 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 would be maintainable.
9. PD Khandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra 1984 SCR (1) 414- ​It is

© iPleaders. This report is licensed only to BarHacker students. Any unauthorized use, circulation or
reproduction will be liable to action under applicable law.
 professionally improper for a member of the bar to prepare false documents, or
to draw pleadings knowing that the allegations made are untrue to his
knowledge. Thus, giving of improper legal advice may amount to professional
misconduct, which may not be so by the giving of wrong legal advice. (Violation
of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules-Chapter II)
10. Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya AIR 1997 SC 864- ​The defendant
assaulted his opponent with a knife. Prosecuted under Section 307 of IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act. Conviction suspended on basis of a letter from the
governor. Supreme Court held that his conduct was such that his name should be
removed from the state role of advocates as he was unworthy of remaining in the
profession after the conviction. (Rule 7A of Chapter III of BCI Rules)
11. NG Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde ​AIR 2001 SC 2028- ​Advocates kept
seeking adjournments, and thus harassing the witnesses for the purpose of
cross-examination. Guilty of misconduct. Court also analysed Section 35 of the
Act and held that the requirement of “reason to believe” cannot be converted into
a formalised procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous
enquiries. Violation of Rule 11 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
12. In Re: Tulsidas Amanmal Karani vs. Unknown AIR 1941 Bom 228 - ​Section
35 envisages not only ‘professional misconduct’ but also ‘other misconducts’, not
defined in the Act. In case relating to Indian Bar Councils Act 1926 the Court held
that “any conduct which in any way renders a man unfit for the exercise of his
profession or is ‘likely to hamper or embarrass the administration of justice by
this Court or any of the Courts subordinate thereto’ may be considered to be
misconduct calling for disciplinary action.”
13. Central Bureau of Hyderabad vs. K Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 - ​For
liability, there has to be moral delinquency. Mere negligence sans moral
delinquency will not suffice. If negligence is of culpable nature, then it may lead
to prof misconduct but not necessarily criminal liability.
14. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45- ​Lawyers have no right to
strike, i.e. to abstain from appearing the court in cases in which they hold vakalat
for the parties, even if it is in response to or in compliance with a decision of any
association or body of lawyers.
15. Byram Pestonji Gariwal vs. Union Bank of India (1992) 1 SCC 31 –
Supreme Court discussed role of the counsel in compromise of suit. It will be
prudent for counsel not to act on implied authority (given by vakalatnama) except
when warranted by the necessity of circumstances demanding immediate
adjustment of suit by agreement or compromise and the signature of the party
cannot be obtained without undue delay
16. Rajendra Pai vs. Alex Fernandes AIR 2002 SC 1808 ​– The lawyer in a class
action suit settled contingent fee depending on the quantum of compensation
awarded to the claimant; and that he identified some claimants in opening a bank
account wherein the cheque for the awarded amount of compensation was lodged
and then the amount withdrawn which identification was later on found to be
false. Held guilty of misconduct (as in violation of Rule 20 of the BCI Rules of
Conduct) and suspended for seven years.
17. R.D. Saxena vs. Balram Prasad Sharma (2000) 7 SCC 264 - ​The advocate
does not have a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his
client.
1
18. Virendra Kumar Gupta vs. Anil Kumar Jain ​-​The lawyer in connivance with

1
​https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60710347/
© iPleaders. This report is licensed only to BarHacker students. Any unauthorized use, circulation or
reproduction will be liable to action under applicable law.
 the other party, deliberately and intentionally did not appear in the execution
proceedings of his client, which were therefore dismissed in default. The lawyer
did not serve the interest of his client and in fact acted against his interest. Guilty
of misconduct under Rule 5 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
19. Joginder Singh vs BCI AIR 1975 Delhi 192 - ​Advocate had concealed facts
about his conviction under Section 473 of IPC and the fact that he was out on
bail. Given the high standards expected of those in the legal profession, it would
definitely be a fraud/misrepresentation if the concerned advocate does not
disclose the fact of his previous conviction, especially those involving moral
turpitude as they help ascertain the character of a man. (Violation of Rule 43 of
the BCI Rules- Chapter II)
20. Surendra Nath Mittal vs. Daya Nand Swaroop BCI Tr. Case No. 63 / 1987.
– ​The ​advocate made manipulation in the operative part of the judgement and
decree by adding the words “mai sood” i.e. including interest. Disciplinary
committee held him guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of Rule 1 and 2
of the BCI Rules- Chapter II)
21. Vikramaditya vs. Smt. Jamila Khatoon D.C. Appeal No. 21/1996 - ​The
obtaining of the signature by the advocate on blank vakalatnama and blank water
marked papers for the purpose of defrauding the client’s amounts to the
professional misconduct under Rule 15 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II.
22. Allahabad Bank vs. Girish Prasad Verma BCI Tr. Case No. 49/1993 – ​The
advocate did not file, rather, misappropriated the sum paid to him by the client
for the purpose of court fees (in violation of Rule 23 of the BCI Rules- Chapter II).
U.P Bar Council disciplinary committee held him guilty of professional misconduct.
23. Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain BCI Tr. Case No. 115 / 1996- ​The
complainant alleged that the respondent advocate was a practising lawyer as well
as was working as an editor, printer, and publisher of a weekly paper. Rule 47 of
BCI rules prohibits an advocate to be engaged personally in any business. The
respondent advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying on the
business and his conduct was taken by the disciplinary committee as professional
misconduct.
24. John D’souza v. Edward Ani 1994 SCC (2) 64 ​The lawyer refused to return
the will he executed, in spite of two letters demanding to hand over the will. The
Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed breach of his professional
duty and found him guilty of profession misconduct. (Violation of Rule 15 of the
BCI Rules- Chapter II)
25. V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan 1979 SCR (1) 1054- The lawyer failed to
disclose the conflicting interests to client, and also betrayed the trust reposed in
him by the client, hence violating Rule 24 of the BCI Rules of Professional Ethics.
The lawyer suspended for one year.

© iPleaders. This report is licensed only to BarHacker students. Any unauthorized use, circulation or
reproduction will be liable to action under applicable law.