Supreme Court of India

P.D. GUPTAversusRAM MURTI AND ANR.

Citation: 1997 INSC 535
Decided: 8 July 1997
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: S C AGRAWAL

Holding

The advocate’s purchase and resale of the client’s disputed property amounted to professional misconduct, and the one‑year suspension imposed by the Bar Council of India was justified and not disproportionate.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by advocate P.D. Gupta under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, challenging his one‑year suspension imposed by the Bar Council of India for professional misconduct. Gupta, who had acted as counsel for a client in litigation over the estate of the deceased Srikishan Dass, purchased a disputed property from that client at a throw‑away price and later sold it to a third party for profit, thereby becoming a party to the litigation. The Court held that Gupta was fully aware of the allegations, that the charge was not complicated, and that his conduct—buying the subject‑matter of the dispute and profiting from it—subverted the administration of justice and was unbecoming of an advocate. The Court affirmed that the Bar Council’s disciplinary process was proper and that the one‑year suspension was not disproportionate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the advocate’s purchase of disputed property from his client constitutes professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether the failure to frame a specific charge in the disciplinary proceedings prejudiced the advocate’s defence.
Whether the one‑year suspension imposed by the Bar Council of India is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the disciplinary order of the Bar Council of India.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 35, s. 36B, s. 38
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 276

Subjects

professional misconductAdvocates ActBar Council of Indiadisciplinary proceedingsconflict of interestadministration of justicesuspensionlawyer‑client relationship

Judgment

A P.D. GUPTA
v.
RAM MURTI AND ANR.

JULY 8, 1997

B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

Advocates Act, 1961:

Section 35--Professional misconduct-Where appellant- advocate
C buying disputed property which was not only under litigation but at a throw
away price from his client whose title to the property was in doubt and selling
---
the same to the third party for profit-Whether guilty of professional miscon-
duct-Held, yes. Also held that such conduct unbecoming of an advocate
bringing process of administration of justice into disrepute.

D Non framing of charges-Held, not fat al to the proceedings under
Section 35 when charge was not complicated and the advocate having suffi-
ciently long practice was fully aware of the allegations he was to meet.

Conduct of an Advocate-Held, should be fair not only to his client
but also to the Bar as well as the opposite party.
E
Role of Advocates-Held, while conducting case he functions as an
officer of the co wt and there/ore it is his duty to keep the administration of
justice unpolluted.

Professional misconduct-Punishment-Whether disproportionate to
F the misconduct-Held, by the purchase and the sale transaction he created
complications in the pending litigation and thereby subverted the process of
justice. Hence punishment of debarring him from practicing for a period of
one year, awarded by Bar Council of India, not disproportionate to the
misconduct.
G Sections 38, 35, 36B-Appeal before the Supreme Court against the
order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of lndil~Inter
ference-Wlzen called for-Held, when the Disciplinary Committee on con-
sideration of all the relevant circumstances found the appellant-advocate
guilty of misconduct, there was no reason for the Supreme Court to take a
H different view.
508
P.O. GUPTA v. RAMMURTI 509

'Administration of justice'-Philosophy of-Held, administmtion of jus- A
tice is stream which has to be kept pure and clean-It has to be kept
unpolluted-Administration of justice is not something which concerns the
Bench only-It concerns the Bar as well.

Words & Phrases: Administration of justice-Meaning of
B
The appellant-advocate, who had been the counsel for one V in all
the proceedings pending before the courts in Delhi with respect to the
estate of one deceased S, for grant of probate/letter of administration,.
purchase property from her in his name and in the name of his son-in-law
at a throw away price. The title of the property purchased by the appellant C
was in doubt. The main grievance of-the Respondent-complainant before
the Bar Council of Delhi was, how appellant, being an advocate, could
purchase the property from his client which was the subject matter of
dispute between the parties. Complaint filed against the appellant also
alleged that there was doubt cast on the right ofV inheriting the properties
of S on account of various pending proceedings and further that the D
complainant and others had alleged that she was an imposter. Later on
the same property was sold by the appellant to some third party for profits.

The Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the Complaint within
one year as per the mandate of the Advocates Act, and the same was E
transferred to the Bar Council of India for disposal.

The Bar Council of India held the Appellant guilty of professional
misconduct and debarred the appellant from practice for a period of one
year. Appellant therefore filed appeal under section 38 of the Advocates
Act, 1961 before the Supreme Court. F
The main contention of the appellant was that the complaint was not
filed by the aggrieved person. It was also submitted that no specific charge
had been framed in the disciplinary proceedings which had prejudiced the
appellant in the conduct of his defence. It was also contended that was no
longer concerned with the property as he has sold away the same. G
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Appellant was fully aware of the allegations he was to
meet. It was not a complicated charge. He has been sufficiently long in
practice. The argument that a charge had not been formulated appears to H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A be more out of the discontentment of Appellant in being unable to meet
the allegation. Now, Appellant says that he has washed off his hands of the
property and thus he is not guilty of any misconduct. That is not the issue.
It is his conduct in buying the property, the subject matter of litigation
between the parties, from his client on which he could exercise undue
B influence especially when there was a doubt cast on his client's title to the
property. (518-B-D]

2. Had the appellant sold the property back to V and got the sale deed
in his favour cancelled, something could have been said in his favour. But
that is not so. He sold the property to a third person, made profit and
C created more complications in the pending suit. Appellant purchased the
pl'operties which were subject matter of dispute for himself and also for his
son-in-law at almost throw away prices and thus he himself became a party
to the litigation. Conduct of appellant cannot be said to be above board. It
is not material that V or anyone claiming through here has not comnlained
against him. This Court is concerned with the professional conduct of
D appellant as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. [518-C-F]

.3. A lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court
as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration
of Justice is stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept
E unpolluted. Administration of Justice is not something which concerns the
Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principle ground for
recruiting Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the
conduct of a lawyer. While conducting the case he functions as officer of
the Court. [518-E-F]

F 4. Appellant, in buying the property has in effect subverted the
process of justice. His action has raised serious q.uestion about his fairness
in the conduct of the trial touching his professional conduct as an
advocate. By his action he has brought the process of administration of
justice in disrepute. [518-F-G]

G
5. Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils are statutory
bodies under the Act. These bodies perform varying functions under the Act ..
and the rules framed thereunder. Bar Council of India has laid standards of
professional conduct for the members. Code of conduct in the circumstances
can never be exhaustive. Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are the
H representative bodies for the Advocates on their rolls and are charged with
P.O. GUPTA v. RAM MURTI(D.P. WADHWA,J.] 511

the responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members and punish A
those who go astray from the path of rectitude set out for them. In the
present case the Bar Council of India, through its Disciplinary Committee,
has considered all the relevant circumstances and has come to the con-
clusion that appellant is guilty of misconduct and there is no reason to take
a different view. There is no ground to interfere with the punishment B
awarded to the appellant in the circumstances of the case.
[518-H; 519-A-C]
6. The charge of professional or other misconduct by an advocate is a
serious matter and has to be considered and disposed of by the Disciplinary
Committee of a State Bar Council expeditiously and within a period of one
year. It is beyond comprehension as to why the Disciplinary Committee of C
the Delhi Bar Council could not dispose of the matter within the prescribed
time frame and it was left to the apex body to deal with it. [519-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15496 of
1996.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.96 of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India, New Delhi in T.C. No. 39 of 1994.

Yogesh K. Jain, Pravir K. Jain, M.A. Khan, B.K. Sharma and Rajiv
Dutta, for the Appellant.
E
In-person for the Respondent in No. 1.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

D. P. WADHWA, J. The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi.
He has filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in F
short the Act) against order dated may 4, 1996 of the Disciplinary Com-
mittee of Bar Council of India holding him guilty of misconduc't and
suspending him from practice for a period Of one year. This order by the
Bar Council of India was passed as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it within G
a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar
Council of India under Section 36B of the Act. Section 36B enjoins upon
the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council to dispose of the com-
plaint received by it under Section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any
case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the
receipt of the
/
complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A the instance of the State Bar Council. Under Section 35 of the Act where
on the receipt of a complaint-or otherwise the State Bar Council has reason
to believe that any advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or
other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary
Committee.

B One Srikishan Dass died on January 5, 1980 leaving behind extensive
properties, both movable and immovable. One Vidya Wati claiming to be
the sister and the only legal heir of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under
Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of District Judge,
Delhi for grant of probate/letters of administration to the estate of
C deceased Srikishan Dass. This she filed in February, 1980. It is not that
there was any will. The complainant Ram Murti (who is now respondent
before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of
Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three
different wills. They also filed separate proceedings under Section 276 of
D the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi. Since there was
dispute regarding inheritance to the properties of Srikishan Dass, Vidya
Wati also filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and
injunction against various defendants numbering 23, including the
complainant Ram Murti who is defendant No. 21. This suit was filed on
February 10, 1982, Vidya Wati had prayed for a decree of injunction
E against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into property
bearing No. 4852, Harbans Singh Street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from
interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of
immovable properties detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. She also sought
a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned
therein in the Schedule. It is not necessary for us to detail the properties
F
shown in Schedule-A except to note two properties at 24 Daryaganj, New
Delhi bearing No. 4852 and 4858-A. It is stated that this suit is still pending
in the Delhi High Court and all the proceedings under Section 276 of the
Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating to the estate of
Srikishan Dass have also been transferred from the Court of District Judge,
G Delhi to the High Court and the being tried alongwith the suit filed by
Vidya Wati as aforesaid.

It would appear that Vidya Wati also filed various other proceedings
-
respecting the properties left by deceased Srikishan Dass against occupants
H or otherwise. P.O. Gupta, advocate who is appellant before us had been
P.D.GUPTA v. RAMMURTI[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 513

her counsel throughout in all these proceedings. The complaint alleged A
against him is that though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right
of Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of Srikishan Dass on account of
pendency of various proceedings and further that the complainant and
others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be
sister of Srikishan Dass was false yet ·P.O. Gupta purchased ground floor
of property bearing No. 4858-A. 24 Daryaganj from Vidya Wati by sale- B
deed dated December 30, 1982. The complainant also alleged that Vidya
Wati had been describing herself either as the real sister, step sister or even
half-blood sister of Srikishan Dass which fact was well known to P.O.
Gupta, her counsel.

It is not for us to go into the merits or demerits of the controversy
c
raised by the parties in various proceedings pending in the Courts and still
awaiting adjudication, the grievance of the complainant is as to how an
advocate could purchase property from his Client which property is the
subject matter of dispute between the parties in a court of law. During the
course of hearing of this appeal it was also brought to our notice that D
second floor of the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj was pur-
chased by Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-law of the advocate P.O. Gupta
from Vidya Wati. Then again it was brought to our notice that advocate
P.D. Gupta sold the property purchased by him in November, 1987 for a
consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/- when he himself had purchased the property
for Rs. 1,80,000/- in December, 1982. It is pointed out that the facts relating E
to purchase of different portions of property No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj and
subsequent sale by P.O. Gupta were not brought on record of the said suit
filed by Vidya Wati.

Be that as it may, the Bar Council of India has commented upon the F
conduct of P.D. Gupta in buying the property from Vidya Wati in the
circumstances aforesaid who had been describing herself some time as a
half-blood sister, real sister or even step-sister of Srikishan Dass. The
explanation given by P.O. Gupta is that though Yidya Wati was step-sister
of Srikishan Dass but the latter always treated her like her real sister and
that is how Vidya Wati also at times described herself as real sister. G

There are some more facts which could also be noted. Vidya Wati
herself has died and she is stated to be survived by her only daughter Maya
Devi who is also now dead. Before her death Vidya Wati allegedly executed
a will in favour of her grandson Anand Prakash Bansal who is stated to be H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A the son of Maya Devi bequeathing all her properties to him. Vidya Wati
died on October 26, 1991 and Maya Devi on April 13, 1992. It is stated
that P.P. Bansal husband of Maya Devi and father of Anand Prakash
Bansal has been acting as General Attorney of Vidya Wati and instructing
P.D. Gupta.

B In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of Anand Prakash
Bansal wherein it is claimed that sale-deeds executed by Vidya Wati in
favour of P.D. Gupta and his son-in-law Suresh Kumar Gupta were without
any pressure from any one and were by free will of Vidya Wati. P.D. Gupta
has claimed that complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated and he himself
C had no title to the properties of Srikishan Dass being no relation of his and
the Will propounded by him had been found to be forged as opined by the
CFSL/CBI laboratory. The fact that the will propounded by Ram Murti is
forged or not is still to be decided by the Court. In the affidavit filed by
P.D. Gupta in answer to the complaint of Ram Murti he has stated that
D "Lala Srikishan Dass left behind his sister Smt. Vidya Wati who succeeded
to the estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over the entire
movable and immovable estate. Thereafter the complainant and two other
persons propounded Will of Lala Srikishan Dass". This statement of P.D.
Gupta has been verified by him as true and correct to his knowledge. It
does appear to us to be rather odd for a lawyer to verify such facts to his
E knowledge. It is claimed that when Srikishan Dass died, subject immovable
property was plot bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 Sq.
feet and the same was got mutated in the name of Vidya Wati in the
records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and then she got plans
sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for construction of
F the house on this plot and which she did construct and got completion
certificate on August 28, 1981. It is peculiar, rather astounding, how could
Vidya Wati get the property of Srikishan Dass mutated in her name when
she is yet to be granted letters of administration or declaration to her title.

G We examined the two sale-deeds transferring this property, one
executed in favour of P.D. Gupta and other in favour of his son- in-law
Suresh Kumar Gupta and we have also examined the proceedings on the
basis of which Bar Council of India came to the conclusion that P.D. Gupta ·
was guilty of misconduct and he be debarred from practising for the period
of one year. When Ram Murti complained that P.D. Gupta had fraudulent-
H ly purchased the property of deceased Srikishan Dass being the entire
P.D. GUPTA v. RAMMURTI[D.P. WADHWA,J.] 515

ground floor property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj, Delhi as per A
sale-deed executed on December 30, 1982 from Vidya Wati as also in the
name of his son-in-law Suresh Kumar son of Suraj Bhan knowing fully well
that Vidya Wati was not the owner of the property, the reply given by P.D.
Gupta is as under:

"5. Para 5 as stated is false, misleading and ill- motivated, in B
view of the above submissions. This respondent did purchase the
ground floor portion from Smt. Vidya Wati by a registered sale
deed and sold the same by a registered sale deed in November,
1987, and has no longer any concern with any of the properties of
Smt. Vidya Wati. (As per) the information of the Respondent, no C
proceedings disputing the title of Smt. Vidya Wati or cancellation
of sale deed in favour of any of the buyers from Smt. Vidya Wati
who are more than 20 in number, has been filed so far. One of
such buyers is Sh. P .P. Sharma, the ex-Registrar of the Delhi High
Court. This Respondent believed Smt. Vidya Wati as the right
owner according to the facts and law and sold it as aforesaid. The D
applicant is in no way concerned with the rights of the Respondent
and the matter pending for adjudication is between the com-
plainant and the concerned parties."

In the sale deed which is dated December 30, 1982 executed in favour
of P.D. Gupta recitals show that the agreement to sale was entered into on E
September 3, 1980. The completion certificate of the building was obtained
on August 28, 1981, payment of Rs. 1,50,000 made before execution of the
sale deed on various dates from 3.8.80 to 20.11.1981 by means of cheques
except one payment of Rs. 10,000 made by cash on September 3, 1980.
Balance amount of consideration of Rs. 30,000 was paid at the time of F
registration of the sale deed. In the sale deed there is no mention of any
civil suit respecti11g this property pending in the High Court. Rather it is
stated that vendor had constructed various floors and had
assured/represented to the vendee that she had a good and marketable title
to the property and the same was free from all sorts of liens, charges,
encumbrances or other like burdens, and in case any defect in the title of G
the vendor was later on proved, the vendor undertook to compensate the
, vendee for all losses, damages and claims, which might be caused to him
in this regard. In the other sale deed dated December 2, 1982 executed in
favour of son-in-law of P.D. Gupta, which was filed during course of
hearing of this appeal, it is mentioned that after obtaining completion H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A certificate on August 28, 1981 Vidya Wati let out the second floor of the
property comprising five rooms, kitchen, two bathrooms on a monthly rent
of rupees five hundred to Suraj Bhan Gupta. Recitals to this deed show
that in order to fetch better price Vidya Wati agreed to sell the property
being second floor which according to her was not giving good return for
B consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- to Suresh Kumar Gupta. Now this Suresh
Kumar Gupta son-in-law of P.D. Gupta is no other person than the son of
Suraj Bhan Gupta, the tenant. There is no mention of any agreement to
sell in this sale-deed but what we find is that first payment of Rs. 20,000
towards consideration was made on November 5, 1981, second payment of
Rs. 25,000 on February 20, 1982 and third of Rs. 30,000 on April 26, 1982.
C Balance payment has been made at the time of execution of the sale deed
on December 2, 1982.

Bar Council of India has taken note of the following facts : c

1. P.D. Gupta claims to know Vidya Wati since 1980 when Srikishan
D Dass was alive. He knew vidya Wati closely and yet contradictory stands
were taken by Vidya Wati when she varyingly described herself as half-
blood sister, real sister or step-sister of Srikishan Dass. These contradictory
stands in fact cast doubt on the very existence of Vidya Wati herself. This
also created doubt about bona fides of P.D. Gupta who seemed to be a
E family lawyer of Vidya Wati.

2. P.D. Gupta knew that the property purchased by him from Vidya
Wati was subject matter of litigation and title of Vidya Wati to that
property was in doubt.

F 3. Huge property situated in Daryaganj Ganj was purchased by P.D.
Gupta for a mere sum of Rs. 1,80,000 in 1982.

4. The agreement for sale of property was entered into as far back
on September 3,1980 and P.D. Gupta had advancing money to Vidya Wati
G from time to time which went to show that as per version of P.D. Gupta
he knew Vidya Wati quite well, When P.D. Gupta knew Vidya Wati so
closely how vidya Wati could take contradictory stands vis-a-vis her
relationship with Srikishan Dass.

Bar Council of India was thus of view that conduct of P.D. Gupta in
H circumstances was unbecoming of professional ethics and conduct .
P.D. GUPTA v. RAM MURTI [D.P. WAD HWA, J.] 517

Bar Council of India also observed: A

"It is acknowledged fact that a lawyer conducting the case of
• his client has a commanding status and can exert influence of his
client. As a member of the Bar it is in our common knowledge
that lawyers have started contracting with the clients and enter into
bargains that in case of success he will shore the result. Number B
of instances have been found in the cases of Motor Accident
Claims. No doubt there is no bar for a lawyer to purchase property
but on account of common prudence specially law knowing person
will never prefer to purchase the property, the title of which is
under doubt,," c
Finally it said:

"But for the purpose of the present complaint, having regard
to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Committee is of
the opinion that the conduct of the respondent is patently unbe- D
coming of a lawyer and against professional ethics. Consequently,
we feel that as an exemplary punishment, shri P.D. Gupta should
be suspended from practice for a period of one year so that other
erring lawyer should learn a lesson and refrain themselves from
indulging in such practice." E
The question which arise for consideration is: In view of the
aforementioned facts is P.D. Gupta guilty of professional or other
misconduct and if so is the punishment awarded to him disproportionate
to the professional or other misconduct of which he has been found guilty?
F
Mr. Y.K. Jain learned counsel appearing for the appellant P.D.
' Gupta submitted that if in a case like this it was held that a lawyer was
-I
guilty of professional misconduct particularly on a complaint filed by an
-{
interested person like Ram Murti no lawyer would be able to conduct
'· henceforth the case of his client fearlessly. Mr. Jain said that the aggrieved G
person, if any, in this case would have been either Vidya Wati, her daughter
Maya Devi or her grand-son Anand Prakash Bansal and neither of them
had complained. It was also submitted that though the property was
purchased by P.D. Gupta in late 1982 the complaint by Ram Murti was
filed only on December 16, 1992. Mr. Jain explained that as to how Vidya
Wati had been varyingly described in various litigation was on account of H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A instruction from her or her Attorney and it was no fault of P.D. Gupta on
that account. It was submitted that no specific charges had been framed in
the disciplinary proceedings which had caused prejudice to P.O. Gupta in
the conduct of his defence. Lastly, it was contended that P.O. Gupta was
no longer concerned with the property as he had sold away the same.

B There appears to be no substance in the submissions of Mr. Jain.
P.O. Gupta was fully aware of the allegations he was to meet. It was not a
complicated charge. He has been sufficiently long in practice. The argu-
ments that a charge had not been formulated appears to be more out of
the dis-contentment of P.O. Gupta in being unable to meet the allegation.
C Now P.O. Gupta says that he has washed off his hands of the property and
thus is not guilty of any misconduct. That is not the issue. It is his conduct
in buying the property, the subject matter of litigation between the parties,
from his client on which he could exercise undue influence especially when
there was a doubt cast on his client's title to the property. Had P.O. Gupta
sold the property back to Vidya Wati and got the sale deed in his favour
D cancelled something could have been said in his favour. But that is not so.
He sold the property to a third person, made profit and created more
complication in the pending suit. P.O. Gupta purchased the properties
which were subject matter of dispute for himself and also for his son-in-law
at almost throw away prices and thus he himself became a party to the
E litigation, Conduct of P.O. Gupta cannot be said to be above board. It is
not material that Vidya Wati or anyone claiming through her has not
complained against him. We are concerned with the professional conduct
of P.O. Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. A lawyer owes
duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to the
opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration of Justice is
F stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted.
Administration of Justice is not something which concern the Bench only.
It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principal ground for recruiting
Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a
lawyer. While conducting the case he functions as officer of the court.
Here, P.O. Gupta in buying the property as in effect subverted the process
G of justice. His action has raised serious questions about his fairness in the
co:iduct of the trial touching his professional conduct as an advocate. By
his action he has brought the process of administration of justice in
disrepute.

H Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are statutory bodies
P.D. GUPTA v. RAM MURTI [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 519

under the Act. These bodies perform varying functions under the Act and A
the rules framed thereunder. Bar Council of India has laid standards of
professional conduct for the members. Code of conduct in the circumstan-
ces can never be exhaustive. Bar Council of india and State Bar Councisl
are representative bodies of the Advocates on their rolls and are charged
with responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members and punish B
those who go astray from the path of rectitude set out for them. In the
present case the Bar Council of India, through its disciplinary committee,
had considered all the relevant circumstances and has come to the con-
clusion that P.D. Gupta, advocate is guilty of misconduct and we see no
reason to take a different view. We also find no ground to interfere with
the punishment awarded to P.D. Gupta in the circumstances of the case. C

The charge of profession<'] or other misconduct by an advocate is a
serious matter and has to be considered and disposed of by the Disciplinary
Committee of a State Bar Council expeditiously and within a period of one
year. We are unable to comprehend as to why the Disciplinary Committee
of the Delhi Bar Council could not dispose of the matter within the · D
prescribed time framed and it was left the apex body to deal with it.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

R.K.S. Appeal dismissed

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "professional misconduct"Sign in to search