18.04.2020 Selected Opinion

Reading Material for B. Com LLB. VIII Semester (17.04.
2020)
SELECTED OPINION OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR

COUNCIL OF INDIA ON PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
1.. Banumurthy v. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh
DC Appeal No.3/1994
The appellant was a member of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial service. When he was
working as Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad there were certain allegations of
corruption against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and e was served
with an order of compulsory retirement and retired on 30-7-1991.
After compulsory retirement he applied for resumption of practice. The State Bar
Council referred the matter to the Bar Council of India because he had been found
guilty by the departmental enquiry. The Bar Council of India returned the matter to
the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found him guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 2 years.
Against this order the present appeal has been filed.
When the appeal was pending, he was allowed to resume his practice from 6-4-1994
by some court order. Bar Council of India continued the enquiry and finally held that
since 2 years has already lapsed since his punishment for corruption charges, he shall
resume his practice.
2. Dr. D. V. P. Raja v. D. Jayabalan
BCI DC Appeal No.43/1996

The appellant lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu alleging that
the respondent’s application in the form of complaints addressed to various
authorities amounts to professional to misconduct. The State Bar Council passed a
resolution that there is a prima facie case of professional misconduct and it was
placed before the Disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council for its
adjudication.
Before the Disciplinary Committee the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the
Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter because there is no
connection between his standing as lawyer and his representation to various
authorities. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council also accepted this
argument and dismissed complaint without going in to the merits of the complaint.
The Disciplinary Committee held that there was no nexus or proximity in his
standing as a lawyer and his to various authorities.
Against this order an appeal was filed before Bar Council of India. In the Bar Council
of India, it was argued that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu having passed a resolution
that there is a prima facie case against the respondent, the Disciplinary Committee
could not have dismissed the complaint without hearing it on merits.
After hearing both the sides the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has passed a resolution
that there is a prima facie case to be enquired in to by the Disciplinary Committee
has no power to consider the question of its jurisdiction on the matter.
The decision of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is good and valid.
3. G. M. Hirmani v. Iswarappa
BCI DC Appeal No. 30/1995

The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent. Mr. Iswarapa (a practicing
lawyer) in the Bar Council of Karnataka alleging professional misconduct on the
following grounds.
1. The petitioner filed a partition suit against Grija Devi and Premadevi
(O.S.No.293/87). The respondent Mr. Iswarappa was the general power of attorney
holder of Smt. Girija Devi and Premadevi and also acted as Advocate for them in
the said case. He misused his position as an Advocate and dominated the will of
Girija Devi and Premadevi and purchased one portion of the suit property on 30-3-
93 from them.
2. On 4-6092 Mr. Iswarappa took the signature of kirmani in a ten rupee bank bond
paper promising to compromise the partition suit and thereafter committed theft of
the same bond paper.
3. During the pendency of the partion suit Mr. Iswarappa often visited the house of
the complainant in a drunken stage, through the complainant had asked him not to
visit his house during the pendency of the suit.
4. Iswarappa has falsely filed a criminal case against the complainant

(C.C.No.12/93) Which was dismissed after enquiry.
During the enquiry Iswarappa admitted that he was the general power of attorney of
Girija Devi and Premadevi and has purchased their property for valuable
consideration and paid the full amount and denied all other allegations.
The State Bar Council, after conducting a proper enquiry dismissed the complaint.
Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India.
The Bar Council of India also dismissed the appeal on the following grounds.
1. The complainant had failed to prove that Mr. Iswarappa took signature of the
complainant on a blank bond paper.
2. He has failed to prove that Iswarappa has purchased the property by misusing his
power of attorney.
3. He failed to prove that Iswarappa acted as an Advocate for Girija Devi Premadevi
in the partition suit. Iswarappa produced evidence that he never acted as council of
pemadevi and Girijadevi in the partition suit and one Mr. Atchutha Giri was the
Advocate for them in that partition suit. Thus the complainant had failed to establish
a case of professional misconduct against the respondent.
4. N.S. (Appellant) v. K.V. (Respondent)
BCI DC Appeal No.14/198
The appellant was a Govt. Pleader and the respondent was a Senior Advocate of 33
years’ experience in the Madras High Court. On 12-11-1986 when he was going to
the Bar Association, the appellant informed him that he made a mention of a case
before a Judge in which respondent was appearing for the opposite party. The
respondent told the appellant that he had not been previously informed about it and
that he has no notice that the appellant is going to make a mention in the case; so `I
will see to it’’. Immediately the appellant without any justification abused the
respondent in a very bad manner using vulgar words.
K.V. filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. N.S. denied all the
allegations, but admitted that heated exchange of words took place between them.
After examining both the parties, the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 6 months.
N.S. challenged this order before the Bar Council of India. The main question in the
appeal is whether the abusive language used by the appellant against the respondent
would amount to professional misconduct. The Bar Council of India held that it
amounts to professional misconduct but it held that the suspension of N.S. from
practice for a period of 6 months is not necessary and reprimanded with strong
words.
5. P. R (Complainant)v. V.I (Respondent)
BCI TR Case No.101/1998
The complainant was the District Munisif Magistrate at Anakapalle from 19-11-84
to 8-4-85. The respondent was a practicing Lawyer there. The respondent was the
Advocate for a respondent in a maintenance case. On 29-10-1985 when the case was
called the Advocate as well as his client was absent, so ex-party order was passed.
Therefore, the present respondent filed a contempt petition against the complainant
(P.R) in his court alleging the following things.
1.The High Court has passed transfer order to P.R. on 20-10-1985 but, instead of
handing over the charge and obey the order he continued there up to 8-11-1985 on
certain pretest (arranged by him).
2.The complainant was wasting valuable time of the court and also the revenue of
the Govt.
P.R. referred this contempt petition to the District Judge. District Judge referred it to
High Court. The court advised P.R. to logde a complaint against V.I. before the State
Bar Council for professional misconduct. Hence P.R. filed a complaint against the
respondent alleging professional misconduct because he has filed contempt petition
on false grounds under his signature against the presiding officer by name and
bringing down the reputation of he presiding officer. The respondent also acted on
his own and not under the instruction of his client.
The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh after enquiry held that by filing the said
contempt petition against the presiding officer with serious allegation, the
respondent has committed professional misconduct.
In the meantime the respondent was also selected and appointed as District Munsif
Magistrate and he ceased to be an Advocate. So, the Bar Council expressed its
inability to pass any order of punishment against him for professional misconduct.
So, they forward this order and other records to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
for necessary action.

18.04.2020 Selected Opinion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18.04.2020 Selected Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Material for B. Com LLB. VIII Semester (17.04.

SELECTED OPINION OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR

1.. Banumurthy v. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh

2. Dr. D. V. P. Raja v. D. Jayabalan

BCI DC Appeal No.43/1996

BCI DC Appeal No. 30/1995

4. Iswarappa has falsely filed a criminal case against the complainant

4. N.S. (Appellant) v. K.V. (Respondent)

BCI DC Appeal No.14/198

5. P. R (Complainant)v. V.I (Respondent)

BCI TR Case No.101/1998

You might also like