CASE BRIEF:John D’souza V. Edward Ani [1993] Insc 532; Air 1994 Sc 975; 1994 (2) Scc 64; 1993 Suppl.jt 327; 1993 (4) Scale 702 (17 December 1993)
Court Judgment Information
- Year of judgement: 17 December 1993
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- INSC: [1993] INSC 5322
CITATION OF THE CASE: 1994 AIR 975 1994 SCC (2) 64 JT 1993 Suppl. 327 1993 SCALE (4)70
JUDGES ON THE BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
BENCH:
PANDIAN, S.R. (J)
SAWANT, P.B.
Acts applied in the case:
Section 35 Advocates act 1961
Section 14(2) of hr advocates act
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In this case, the respondent Edward Ani filed a complaint with the Karnataka State Bar Council saying that the appellant, to whom his mother-in-will, law’s Mrs Mary Raymond, had given safe custody, refused to return the will after receiving two letters requesting its return.
Mary Raymond had been given safe custody and refused to return the will after receiving two letters requesting its return. This case relates to professional misconduct. One M. R. N. E Raymond was the client of the appellant and Mrs Mary Raymond was also the client.
Mrs Mary during her lifetime got her will drafted by the appellant and entrusted the same after execution with the appellant in respect of which the appellant had given a receipt.
The executrix had appointed her husband N. E. Raymond as the executor. The son-in-law claimed himself to be the legal representative of the estate of Mrs Mary. He said that while the other lawyer requested the appellant to let him have the client’s will, the appellant denied it. Thereafter Mrs Mary was obliged to make another will prepared by another.
The respondent lodged a complaint with the Karnataka state association against the appellant under section 35 of the Advocates Act. The state var council rejected the complainant, holding that no prima facie case was made against the appellant.
The said disciplinary committee suspended the operation of the said order for one month. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal in the supreme court and held him guilty of professional misconduct.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
Was the supreme court right in the decision?
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
The respondent filed a review petition holding that there existed a prima facie case of misconduct against the appellant advocate. Thus, the disciplinary committee held him to be guilty of professional misconduct.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court determined that the advocate had violated his professional obligations and had engaged in improper behaviour.
The supreme court held that in the case of the complainant against the advocate for professional misconduct is on the complainant. In this case, he was able to prove that the advocate committed a breach of his professional duty.