Holding

The advocate's conduct amounted to grave professional misconduct, and the ex‑parte proceedings were valid; consequently, the Bar Council of India's order of permanent debarment stands.

Summary

Advocate Vikas Deshpande approached three prisoners sentenced to death, promised to represent them free of charge, and obtained their signatures on a vakalatnama and on stamp papers without explaining the contents. He later claimed a power of attorney to sell their land, sold part of it, and appropriated the proceeds as his fee, although the fee was never settled. The State Bar Council initiated disciplinary proceedings, which were transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act due to delay. The Disciplinary Committee, after serving the advocate four notices and proceeding ex‑parte because he failed to appear, found him guilty of grave professional misconduct and permanently debarred him, also imposing costs. The advocate appealed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, but the Supreme Court upheld the ex‑parte proceedings and the debarment, holding that his conduct violated the trust inherent in the advocate‑client relationship and amounted to grave professional misconduct.

Issues considered

The validity of ex‑parte disciplinary proceedings when the advocate fails to appear despite service of notice.
Whether the advocate's obtaining of a power of attorney by misrepresentation and sale of the clients' land constitutes grave professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Whether the Bar Council of India had jurisdiction to adjudicate after transfer under Section 36B.
The appropriateness of permanent debarment as a sanction.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 35, s. 35(3)(d), s. 36(B), s. 38

Subjects

professional misconductadvocate ethicspower of attorneymisrepresentationdebarmentBar Council of Indiaex parte proceedingslegal ethics

Judgment

A VlKAS DESHPANDE
v.
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 29, 2002

B [V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.j

Advocates Act, 1961; Sections 35, 36(B) & 38:

Complaint of professional misconduct against Advocate for obtaining
C · signature on documents/executing power of Attorney to sell the land of
complainants on misrepresentation-Advocate promised to fight case of
complainants without charging any fee but misappropriated the amount
obtained in sale proceeds of land in lieu offee-State Bar Council could not
complete the disciplinary proceedings within prescribed time limit-Matter
D transferred to BCl-BCIfound Advocate guilty ofgrave professional misconduct
and permanently debarred him from practising as Advocate. On appeal, held: .
Since Advocate obtained power of attorney by misrepresentation in his favour
and sold the property of the complainants and misappropriated sale proceeds
for his fee though it was established that fees was not settled, he has committed
a grave professional misconduct.
E
Complainants were accused in a murder case. They could not engage
Advocate due to poverty, and on their request, Sessions Court appointed
Amicus-Curiae to defend them. Sessions Court awarded death penalty to
them. Appellant-Advocate met the accused-complainants in pri.ion and
offered to fight their case in the High Court without charging any fee and
F obtained their signatures on Vakalatnama and subsequently on some
stamp papers and executed power of attorney, and fraudulently sold lands
of the complainants and misappropriated the sale proceeds in lieu of fee.
High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed death sentence. Appellant
again· contacted them to fight their case in appeal before Supreme Court
G but complainants declined and filed a complaint against the said Advocate
before State Bar Council for professional misconduct by fraudulently
executing power of attorney in his favour and misappropriating sale
proceeds for his gain. State Bar Council referred the matter to its
Disciplinary Committee. Since it could not complete its proceedings within
the prescribed time limit, matter was transferred to the Bar Council of
H 398
·-
VIKAS DESHPANDE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 399
India under the provisions of Advocates Act. A
On the recommendation of Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of
India found appellant-advocate guilty of gross professional misconduct and
permanently debarred him from practising as Advocate and also imposed
cost. Hence this appeal.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. With regard to the plea of appellant that he could not
be proceeded ex-parte, it is on record that the appellant had been duly
served notkes four times and in spite of the notices having been served
on the appellant he did not choose to appear before the Disciplinary C
Committee at any point of time. The Disciplinary Committee had no other
option but to proceed to hear the matter ex parte. 1404-E-FJ

1.2. The power of attorney was obtained by the appellant on
misrepresentation. On the basis of the said power of attorney, he sold the D
land of the <omplainants fraudulently. It is also established that fees of
the appellant had not been settled. He was neither entitled nor justified
in selling the land of the complainants on the basis of the alleged power
of attorney for the recovery of his fees. The only evidence on record is
the statement of complainant whose testimony fully establishes the charge
of professional misconduct against the appellant. 1404-F; 405-A-BI E
1.3. Appellant took advantage of the situation that the complainants
were facing death sentence and obtained power of attorney on
misrepresentation in his favour and sold the property of the complainants.
Further, the appellant fraudulently appropriated the sale proceeds for his
gain. He has committed a grave professional misconduct. F
The Court observed thus:

)Relationship between an advocate and his client is of trust and
therefore sacred. Such acts of professional misconduct and the
frequency with which such acts are coming to light distresses as G
well as saddens us. Preservation of the mutual trust between the
advocate and the client is a must otherwise the prevalent judicial
system in the country would collapse and fail. Such acts do not
only affect the lawyers found guilty of such acts but erode the
confidence of the general public in the prevalent judicial system. H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A ft is more so, because today hundred percent recruitment to the
Bench is from the Bar starting from the subordinate judiciary to
the higher judiciary. You cannot find honest af!d hard working
judges unless you find honest and hard working lawyers in their
chambers. Time has come when the Society in general, respective
Bar Council of the States and the Judges should take note of the
B warning bells and take remedial steps and nip the evil or the
curse, if we may say so, in the bud.) (405-C-FI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appt>al No. 4003 of
2001.

c From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.2001 of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India, New Delhi in B.C.I. Tr. C. No.
51 of 1995.
r
In-persons for the Appellant. ,.
I

D V.B. Joshi, Adv. for the Respondent No. 2.
..,_..
I

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'
BHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by Vikas Deshpande, advocate,
hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant', under Section 38 of the Advocates
E Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act] against the final order passed by the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Cuuncil of India in BCI/TRC No.51 of 1995 dated 3rd
January, 200 I. By the impugned order the Bar Council of India has
permanently debarred the appellant from practising as an advocate for the
commission of a grave professional misconduct and also imposed the cost of
F Rs. 25,000.

Facts:

Ramrao Chandoba Jadhav, Vidyadhar Ramrao Jadhav, and Chandrakant
Ramdeo Jadhav (all deceased), hereinafter referred to as "the complainants'',
G were prosecuted for committing murder of six persons on 16th December,
1990 at village Mandgi, Taluka-Degloor, District-Nanded. Complainants
requested the Sessions Court for appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae
to defend them as they were unable to engage an advocate because of their
poverty. Sessions Court appointed Shri S.V. Ardhapurkar, Advocate as amicus
curiae to defend the complainants. Sessions Court after trial found the
H complainants guilty of the offence charged with and awarded them death
VIKAS DESHPAHDE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [BHAN, !.] 401

penalty by an order dated JOth August, 1991. On the same date the appellant A
contacted the complainants in Yervada Central Prison where they were lodged.
Appellant took the copies of the judgment from the complainants and obtained
their thumb impression and signatures on the Vakalatnama to prefer an appeal
in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench. Appellant told the
complainants that he would not be charging any fee as he was doing this to B
make a name for himself.

On 10th October, 1991 appellant visited the Yervada Central Prison
again and obtained their signatures on some stamp papers. The deed was not
read over to the complainants nor the contents were made known to them.
I
Complainants signed and put their thumb impression on the documents in C
good faith.

In January, 1992 the High Court dismissed the appeal of the complainants
and confirmed the death sentence and subsequently complainants were hanged
to death. On 16th February, 1992, appellant met the complainants in Yervada
Central Prison again and told them that he had sold their land on the basis D
of power of attorney executed in his favour by them authorising him to sell
the land. That he had appropriated the money received by him towards his
fees. Furthei the appellant asked the complainants to authorise him to prefer
an appeal to the Supreme Court which they declined. Thereafter the
complainants filed a complaint with the Chairman, State Bar Council to the
effect that the appellant who was practising as an advocate at Nanded, E
Maharashtra com1nitted an act which amounted to professional n1isconduct
within the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act and for the said act
disciplinary action be taken.

It was stated in the complaint that applicant No. 1 who was 60 years of F
age had a living mother, applicant No.2 had a wife and 4 minor daughters
and applicant No.3 had a wife, 3 daughters and a son who were all minors.
They had requested for the appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae to
defend them to leave theh· property for the surviving members of the family
in case the complainants were sentenced to death. They wanted to leave some
property for their family .members to survive Jest they die of starvation. That G
diey had never authorised the appellant to sell their land. That the appellant
had played fraud on them and sold the property on the basis of the alleged
power of attorney obtained by him through misrepresentation.

Appreciating the seriousness of the complaint made by the complainants,
State Bar Council took suo motu cognizance and issued notice to the appellant H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A who filed his reply. In the.reply filed by the appellant he accepted that the
complainants were in death cell ofYervada Central Prison. He further admitted
that the trial of the aforesaid complainants were conducted by an amicus
curiae and the death sentence was imposed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded.
He described himself to be an expert criminal lawyer as he had conducted
many sessions trials and appeals. It was pleaded by him that he had also
B engaged some other lawyers as well and he was trying his best to pay the fees
of the said advocates by selling the land of the complainants. It was further
stated that on the request of the complainants on 30th August, 1991 he
accepted the vakalatnama on behalf of the complainants on an oral agreement
that the complainants would pay Rs.50,000 to the appellant for conducting
C the confirmation ~ase and the appeal before the High Court. That the
complainants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 as fees and authorised him
to dispose of their land to recover and appropriate the money received by
way of sale towards his fees. Th:>• out of 16 acres Of land own~ by the
complainants the appellant had sold only 6 acres and 30 gunthas of land to
meet the expenses.
D
Another fact which needs to be mentioned is that the government
valuation of the land was 1,35,000 but the appellant had settled the final
consideration at Rs.75,000 out of which Rs.30,000 was paid at the time of the
agreement to sell imd the remaining amount was to be paid before lst March,
E 1992. Later on a sum of Rs.17,000 was paid to the appellant. The remaining
amount of Rs.28,000 could not be obtained by the appellant as the power of
attorney executed in his favour was cancelled by. the complainants.

The complaint was taken cognizance of and the matter was referred to
the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. On 25th of March,
F 1993 the following issues were framed:

"l . Do Petitioners prove that the respondent advocate met them on
30.8.1991, obtained the copy of the judgment, obtained their thumb
impression and signatures on Vakalatnama and told them he would
prefer original appeal on their behalf in the High Court.
G
2. Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate solicited brief
for no remuneration.

3. Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate on 10th October,
l 991 met petitioners and obtained their signatures on the stamp paper
H without explaining the contents of the stamp paper.
VIKAS DESHPANDE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [BHAN, J.] 403

4. Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate met them on A
!6th Feb. I 992 and told them that he had sold their land under the
power of attorney executed by them and told them that he would
prefer an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and
order of the High Court.

5. Do the petitioners prove that the act of the sale of their land by B
respondent advocate, in the given circunlstances constitute, the
professional or any other misconduct of advocate respondent.

6. Does the respondent prove that the petitioners executed the power
of attorney in his favour to alienate their land to the extent of six
acres 30 gunthas situated at Village Manngi, Taluka Deglur, district C
Nanded voluntarily and with full knowledge.

7. Does respondent advocate prove that his fee to conduct criminal
appeal and confirmation case decided by the High Court, Aurangabad
was settled at Rs.50,000 .
D
8. Does respondent advocate prove that he was entitled to and justified
in recovering the fees by selling the land belonging to the petitioners.

9. What orders?"

Vidhyadhar son of Ramrao Jadhav, complainant No.2 was examined on E
oath. He, in his deposition, reiterated that what had been stated by him in his
complaint. He specifically stated that he and his two other associated had not
executed any power of attorney in favour of the appellant authorising him to
sell their land and appropriate the sale consideration towards his fees. That
their signatures had been obtained on blank papers. That the power of attorney
had been obtained by misrepresenting the facts in order to defraud them. This F
witness was cross-examined but nothing of substance could be brought out
from his cross-examination.

As the State Bar Council could not complete the proceedings within a
period of one year, the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India
under section 36B of the Act. The matter was entrusted for further action to G
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. In spite of repeated
notices sent to the appellant which were duly served on him (4 times) the
appellant did not put in appearance. He was proceeded ex-parte. The
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India found the appellant
guilty of suiiciti'.lg brief from the complainants and obtaining their signatures H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A and thumb impressions on certain documents on the basis of which power of
attorney was executed in his favour authorising him to sell the land of the
complainants. It was found that the appellant had failed to prove that the
complainants had executed the power of attorney in his favour to sell the
land. It was also held that the appellant had failed to prove that his fees at
the relevant time to conduct the criminal appeal was settled at Rs. 50,000 .
B That he has failed to prove that he was entitled to and justified in recovering
the fees by selling the land belonging to the complainants. The Disciplinary
Committee found the appellant guilty of gross professional misconduct as
defined under Section 35 of the Advocates Act and directed the State Bar
Council of Maharashtra and Goa to remove the name of the appellant from
C the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under section 35(3d) of
the Act. Cost of Rs.25,000 were imposed and made payable to the heirs of
the complainants because by that time the complainants had already been put
to death in execution of the sentence im;:'osed on them. A lien was created
on the property of the appellant for the recovery of costs.

D Appellant who had appeared in person and the counsel appearing for
the Bar Council _of India have been heard at length.

We do not find any substance in the submission made by the appellant
that he could not be proceeded ex-parte. It is evident from the perusal of the
record that there are four acknowledgements on the record which show that
E the appellant had been duly served four times and in spite of the notices
having been served on the appellant he did not choose to appear before the
Disciplinary Committee at any point of time. The Disciplinary Committee
had no other option but to hear the matter. Secretary of the State Bar Council
who was appointed as a prosecutor also did not lead any evidence because
F in the meantime all the three complainants were hanged in execution of the
sentence imposed on them. The only evidence which remains and which has
come on the record is the statement ofVidhyadhar, complainant. Vidhyadhar's
testimony fully establishes the charge of professional misconduct against the
appellant.

G We agree with the findings recorded in the impugned order. Appellant
has failed to lead any evidence to displace the testimony of Vidhyadhar,
complainant to the effect that the appellant had solicited a brief for himself
from them and they had not executed any power of attorney in his favour for
the purpose of the sale of their land. He had obtained signatures and thumb
H impressions of the complainants on some documents. Without informing and
VIKAS DESHPANDE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [BHAN, J.) 405
to the knowledge of the complainants a power of attorney was got executed A
in favour of the appellant to sell of the land. The power of attorney was
obtained by the appellant on misrepresentation. In pursuance of the aUeged
power of attorney in his favour the appellant sold the land of the complainants
fraudulently. It is also established that fees of the appellant had not been
settled at Rs. 50,000 . He was neither entitled nor justified in selling the land B
of the complainants on the basis of the alleged power of attorney for the
recovery of his fees. Had the intention of the complainants been to sell the
land then they would not have requested for appointment of an amicus curiae
to defend them before the Sessions Court.

Appellant took advantage of the situation that the complainants facing C
death sentence and obtained the power of attorney on misrepresentation in
his favour and sold the property of the complainants. Further, the appellant
fraudulently appropriated the sale proceeds for his gain. He has committed a
grave professional misconduct.

Relationship between an advocate and his client is of trust and therefore D
sacred. Such acts of professional misconduct and the frequency with which
such acts are coming to light distresses as well as saddens us. Preservation
of the mutual trust between the advocate and the client is a must othenvise
the prevalent judicial system in the country would collapse and fail. Such
acts do not only affect the lawyers found guilty of such acts but erode the
confidence of the general ·public in the prevalent judicial system. It is more E
so, because today hundred percent recruitment to the Bench is from the Bar
I
starting from the subordinate judiciary to the higher judiciary. You cannot
find honest and hard working judges unless you find honest and hard working
lawyers in their chambers. Time has come when the Society in general,
respective Bar Council of the States and the Judges should take liote of the F
warning bells and take remedial steps and nip the evil or the curse, if we may
say so, in the bud.

For reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal
accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in this
appeal. G
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.