Citation: 1993 AIR 1608 1993 SCR (2) 488 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 557 JT 1993 (2) 337 1993 SCALE (2)78
Appeal: Civil Appeal no.251 of 1982
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 18, 1993
B.Singh, S.K.Gambhir and Davinder Singh for the Appellant.
R.P.Kapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents.
ACTS IN THE CASE:
Advocates Act, 1961: Section 38-Appeal against the order of Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India-Proceedings against Advocates-Findings-whether proper.
Section 30 – Professional misconduct – Appellant, who was a practising advocate, was found guilty of misappropriating the amount realised from the respondent client without filing the suit – The order of the Bar Council of India, removing the name of the appellant from the rolls of advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi and withdrawing the sanad granted to him, upheld.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
D.S. Dalal worked as an attorney in Delhi. By order dated October 24, 1981, the Bar Council of India removed his name from the list of advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi, and the sanad that had been awarded to him was revoked. The Bar Council of India’s decision is being challenged in accordance with Section 30 of the Advocates Act.
In this case, there was a complainant against an advocate that he misappropriated fees. The advocate pleaded that the court papers were misplaced by the high court registry. It was duly established that the court papers were returned to the advocate by the high court requesting for removing objections but the advocate did not refile the suit for a long time. He wrote a letter to the client bank to get the case restarted through the other counsel for which his assistance was required and then only he would proceed with the case.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Whether the client gave him money for the misappropriation or not?
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
The advocate was found guilty as he did take the money from his client for inappropriate reasons and also claimed that the high court registry but the documents had nothing to prove for him.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The disciplinary committee found him guilty of misappropriation of money paid by the client and therefore punished him for professional misconduct. The advocate preferred an appeal to the supreme court against the said order. The supreme court declined and thus the order of the Bar Council was upheld.