KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHIversusBALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR.

                        [2017] 14 S.C.R. 493


                 KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI                                 A
                                 v.
J:.           BALWANT SINGH THAKUR & ANR.
                  (Civi1Appea!No.15540of2017)
~I

                       DECEMBER 11,2017                                  B

          (A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
      Advocates Act. 1961 - s.35 - Professional misconduct -
Suspension of licence to practice - A suit was filed by the
complainant against his brothers in respect of ancestral property in     C
which complainant had hired appellant-Advocate - Suit was decreed
and complainant was declared to he owner of 0.03 acres of suit
property - Complainant after sometime decided to sell the same -
At the time of registration of sale deed. the appellant-Advocate filed
o~jection before the Registrar that complainant had borrowed
inoney ji-om him and for repayment of said amount had offered half       D
share in the said land as security and. therefore. complainant could
not sell the land without clearing his debt - Complainant challenged
t~e act on part of appellant-Advocate of appearing before the
Registrar and objecting to registration of sale deed as professional
misconduct - State Bar Council and Bar Council of India found the
                                                                         E
appellant-advocate guilty of misconduct and suspended his licence
to practice - Held: Admittedly. in the instant case, the complainant
was selling the property to the intending buyer which was an
arrangement between them unconnected with any legal proceedings
- The said property was not being sold in execution of any decree.
in which proceedings the appellant was engaged - The suit of the         F
complainant in which appellant was hired had already been decreed
and the proceedings had concluded - It was much thereafter that
the complainant intended to sell the property when he found himself
in need of money - The appellant tried to interdict as according to
him the complainant could not sell the property without repaying         G
his debt - This act had nothing to do with the professional conduct
of the appellant -Therefore. the very initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant by the State Bar Council was
improper and without jurisdiction - Impugned order of Bar Council
of India is set aside - Standards of Professional Conduct and
Etiquette - Chapter II; r.22 - Ethics - Professional ethics.             H
                                 493
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017) 14 S.C.R.


A           Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1. Section 35 of the Advocates Act states that
      punishment can be awarded to an Advocate if he is found guilty of
      professional or other misconduct. Rule 22 is the relevant Rule
      in the instant case which proscribes an Advocate from directly or
B     indirectly making a bid for or purchase either in his own name or
      in other's name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other
      person any property sold in the execution of a decree or order in
      any suit, appeal or other proceedings in which he was in any way
      professionally engaged. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
C     complainant was selling the property to the intending buyer which
      was an arrangement between them unconnected with any legal
      proceedings. The said property was not being sold in execution
      of any decree, in which proceedings the appellant was engaged.
      Insofar as the filing of the suit by the appellant on behalf of the
      complainant is concerned, that had resulted into passing of decree
D     and the proceedings had concluded. Even as per the
      complainant's own admission, it was much thereafter that the
      complainant intended to sell the property in question when he
      found himself in need of money. It is this sale which the appellant
      tried to interdict. He was not doing so in the capacity of an
      Advocate. As per him, the complainant was not authorised to
E     sell the property without repaying his debt. Whether the appellant
      was right in this submission or not, is not relevant. What is
      relevant is that this act has nothing to do with the professional
      conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the very initiation of
      disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by the State Bar
F     Council was improper and without jurisdiction.[Paras 6, 7)[498-
      D-H; 499-AJ
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15540
      of2017.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2017 of the Disciplinary
G     Committee of the Bar Council of India, Delhi in D. C.Appeal No. 68 of
      2006.
             Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Olivia Bang, Satya Mitra, Advs.
      for the Appellant.

H
       KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI v. BALWANT SINGH                                 495
                       THAKUR

       Kabir Dixit, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Namit Saxena,                   A
 Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Ms. Taruna A. Prasad, Aishwarya Pathak, Advs. for
 the Respondents.
        The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
                               JUDGMENT
                                                                                B
         1. Respondent No. I herein (the complainant) had lodged a
   complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to
 . as the 'State Bar Council') on 19.12.2003 against the appellant, who is
   an Advocate by profession, alleging that the appellant had acted in a
   manner which amounts to professional misconduct. On that basis, the
  ,complainant pleaded that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant. c
   Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a Disciplinary Committee was
. constituted as the reply dated 03.02.2006 filed by the appellant was found
   not to be satisfactory. After recording the evidence and hearing the
   parties, the Disciplinary Committee passed final orders dated 09.12.2006
   holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and, on that basis, D
   imposed punishment by suspending his license ofpractice for a period of
   two years. The appellant preferred statutory appeal against the said
   decision of the State Bar Council before the Bar Council of India (BCI).
   Vi de the impugned judgment, the BCI has affirmed the finding of the
· State Bar Council as far as holding the appellant guilty of misconduct is
  .concerned. However, it has reduced the term of suspension oflicense E
   from 2 years to one year along with cost ofRs.25,000/- to be paid to the
 . complainant. Against this order of the BCI, the present appeal is preferred
   by the appellant.
  ·'       2. A neat plea which is taken by the learned counsel for the
    ap{lellant is that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are   F
    taken to be correct on its face value, these do not amount to committing
., any misconduct as per the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules
    framed thereunder. We are, therefore, confined to this aspect in the
    present appeal.
         3. From the complaint which was lodged by the complainant before G
  the State Bar Counsel it can be discerned that his allegation was that
  there was a family dispute, i.e., between the complainant and his brothers,
 'in respect of a property which was in the name of their father and was
  an ancestral property. It was stated that after the death of their father
  on 11.10.1989, the said property was divided by the three brothers equally. H
496            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 14 S.C.R.


A However, it transpired that before his death, one of the brothers of the
  complainant influenced his father and got registered the said property in
  the name of the complainant's nephew, i.e., son of that brother, without
  the consent of other brothers vide sale deed dated 25.07.1989. The
  complainant had approached the appellant, who is an Advocate, for filing
B the Suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed was null and void as
  it was prepared fraudulently. The appellant acted as his Advocate and
  filed the Suit. In the said Suit, the parties settled the matter as they
  agreed for declaring the sale deed as ineffective and requested the Court
  for division of the property. This resulted in passing of decree dated
  24.l 0.1994 by the Court in which the complainant was declared owner
C of0.03 acres along with kutcha house out of the disputed property. Till
  this stage, there is no quarrel and there is no allegation against the appellant
  as far as his conducting the said Suit is concerned. However, the
  complainant further alleged that owing to family crises, the complainant
  suffered some financial crunch in the month ofApril, 2003, and he decided
D to sell his share ofland to one Mr. Narsinghmal, son ofSurajmal, for a
  sum ofRs.30,000/- and for the purpose ofregistration of sale deed, he
   produced the earlier sale deed before the office of the Deputy Registrar,
   Dantewada. At that stage, the appellant produced objection letter against
   the proposed sale deed and objected for registration of the said sale
   deed on the ground that the complainant did not have full ownership of
E the proposed land and the market value was also shown less in the said
   sale deed. It was stated by the complainant that the appellant was
   neither an interested party in the said sale deed or in the proposed sale
   of the land nor was he authorised by any party to raise objections. This
   act of the appellant in appearing before the office of the Deputy Registrar
F and objecting to the registration of sale deed was labelled as professional
   misconduct by alleging that the appellant had paid a sum ofRs.20,000/-
   to the complainant in the year 1996 and another sum of Rs.20,000/- to
   the son of the complainant in the year 1999 and for repayment of the
   said amount, the complainant had offered half share of the subject land
   as security. His justification for raising objection, therefore, was that
G since the land was being sold without clearing his debt, it could not be
   done.
            4. Without prejudice to his defence, the learned counsel for the
      appellant submitted that even if the aforesaid contents in the complaint
      are accepted as correct, the act of the appellant was not as anAdvocate
 H
        KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI v. BALWANT SINGH                              497
                        THAKUR

and, therefore, could not amount to committing misconduct. In order to A
appreciate this contention one may refer to Rule 22 under Chapter II of
the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed by the BCI
in exercise of its power under Section 49( 1)(c) of the Advocates Act,
1961. This Rule reads as under:
         "22. An advocate shall not, directly or indirectly, bid for or B
         purchase, either in his own name or in any other name, for his
         own benefit or for the benefit of any other person, any property
         sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit, appeal or
         other proceeding in which he was in any way professionally
         engaged. This prohibition, however, does not prevent an advocate C
         from bidding for or purchasing for his client any property whicl:l
      ,. his client may himselflegally bid for or purchase, provided the
  ·' . Advocate is expressly authorised in writing in this behalf."
      5. Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as per which punishment
can be awarded to an Advocate for misconduct makes the following
reading: -                                 ·                            D
        35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.-
        (1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar
        Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has
        been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the   E
        case for disposal to its disciplinary committee ..
        (IA) The State Bar Council may, either of its own mo~iit' or on.
        application made to it by any person interested, withdraw a
        proceeding pending before its disciplinary committee and direct
        the inquiry to be made by any other disciplinary committee of that
                                                                           F
        State Bar Council.
   I.
      (2) The disciplinary committee ofa State Bar Council 2[***] shall
      fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice
 L.-: thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-
      General of the State.
                                                                              G
        (3) The disciplinary committee of a State:Bar Council after giving
        the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity
        of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:-
        (a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated
                                                                              H
498           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 14 S.C.R.


A          at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings
           be filed;
           (b) reprimand the advocate;
           (c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may
           deem fit;
 B
           (d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of
           advocates.
           (4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause
           (c) of sub-section (3 ), he shall, during the period of suspension, be
 c         debarred from practising in any court or before any authority or
           person in India.
            (5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under
            sub-section (2), the Advocate-General may appear before the
            disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person
 D          or through any advocate appearing on his behalf.
          6. It is very clear from the provisions of Section 35 that punishment
   can be awarded to an Advocate if he is found guilty of professional or
   other misconduct. Rule 22 is the relevant Rule in the instant case which
   proscribes an Advocate from directly or indirectly making a bid for or
 E purchase either in his own name or in other's name for his own benefit
   or for the benefit of any other person any property sold in the execution
   of a decree or order in any suit, appeal or other proceedings in which he
   was in any way professionally engaged.
          7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the complainant was selling the
   property to the intending buyer which was an arrangement between
 F them unconnected with any legal proceedings. The said property was
   not being sold in execution of any decree, in which proceedings the
   appellant was engaged, as noted above. Insofar as the filing of the Suit
   by the appellant on behalf of the complainant is concerned, that had
   resulted into passing of decree and the proceedings had concluded. Even
 G as per the complainant's own admission, it is much thereafter that the
   complainant intended to sell the property in question when he found
   himself in need of money. It is this sale which the appellant tried to
   interdict. He was not doing so in the capacity of an Advocate. As per
   him, the complainant was not authorised to sell the property without
   repaying his debt. Whether the appellant was right in this submission or
 H
      KAUSHAL KISHORE AWASTHI v. BALWANT SINGH                              499
                      THAKUR

not, is not relevant. What is relevant is that this act has nothing to do A
with the professional conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the very
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by the State
Bar Council was improper and without jurisdiction.
      8. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
orders passed by the Bar Council of India.                             . ~ ,•


Devika Gujral                                             Appeal allowed.




 ·'