Gian Chand Goel Vs. Bar Council of India and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1980
Petitioner: Gian Chand Goel
Respondent: Bar Council of India and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2030 of 1980
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 01, 1997
Head Note:
ADVOCATES
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 38 – Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 125 – Professional misconduct – Legality of suspension of Advocate – Appellant Advocate engaged by plaintiff in matrimonial suit – Appellant obtaining the signatures of the plaintiff in blank papers stating that it was required for amending the plaint in view of certain defects in the plaint – However appellant filing an application for withdrawal of suit – Appellant again obtaining the signatures of the plaintiff on plain papers and filing an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without informing the plaintiff that the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn – On complaint made State Bar Council holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for one year – Bar Council of India upholding the decision. Held there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Bar Council as the appellant was guilty of professional and other misconduct.
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 38 – Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 125 – Professional misconduct – Legality of suspension of Advocate – Appellant Advocate engaged by plaintiff in matrimonial suit – Appellant obtaining the signatures of the plaintiff in blank papers stating that it was required for amending the plaint in view of certain defects in the plaint – However appellant filing an application for withdrawal of suit – Appellant again obtaining the signatures of the plaintiff on plain papers and filing an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without informing the plaintiff that the suit has been dismissed as withdrawn – On complaint made State Bar Council holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for one year – Bar Council of India upholding the decision. Held there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Bar Council as the appellant was guilty of professional and other misconduct.
Held:
We have heard Shri B. Kanta Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal and Shri R. Bana, the learned counsel for Respondent 2. We have also perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Bar Council of India holding that the appellant is guilty of professional and other misconduct having withdrawn the suit filed by the daughter of the complainant and in filing the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though no such instruction had been given to him in that regard. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. A complaint was made against the appellant before the State Bar Council by Respondent 2, Abdul Satar, relating to a civil suit filed by the complainant’s daugh-ter, Satara Begum, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was not the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant. The appellant was engaged as a counsel to represent the plaintiff in that suit after the suit had been filed while it was pending in the court. According to the complainant, the appellant had advised the plaintiff that as there were defects in the plaint it was neces-sary to amend the plaint and he obtained the signatures of Satara Begum on a blank sheet and that instead of seeking an amendment in the plaint the appellant filed an application for withdrawal of suit and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In the complaint it was further stated that the appellant did not inform the complainant that the suit had been withdrawn and further that he obtained signatures of Satara Begum on another blank sheet for the purpose of filing an application for transfer of the case and subsequently the appellant filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the complaint it was also stated that the appellant was paid Rs 300 as fees and Rs 150 as expenses and that even though there was no instruction by the client (Satara Begum) to withdraw the suit and to file an application for maintenance, the appellant had with-drawn the suit and had filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complaint regarding withdrawal of the suit and filing the application under Section 125 CrPC in lieu thereafter without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and his daughter Satara Begum had been fully substantiated. The State Bar Council held that the appellant was guilty of professional and other misconduct. The State Bar Council, therefore, ordered that the appell-ant be suspended from practice for a period of one year. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the State Bar Council has been dismissed by the Bar Council of India by the impugned order dated 14-8-1980.
2. We have heard Shri B. Kanta Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal and Shri R. Bana, the learned counsel for Respondent 2. We have also perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Bar Council of India holding that the appellant is guilty of professional and other misconduct having withdrawn the suit filed by the daughter of the complainant and in filing the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though no such instruction had been given to him in that regard. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant is an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. A complaint was made against the appellant before the State Bar Council by Respondent 2, Abdul Satar, relating to a civil suit filed by the complainant’s daugh-ter, Satara Begum, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was not the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant. The appellant was engaged as a counsel to represent the plaintiff in that suit after the suit had been filed while it was pending in the court. According to the complainant, the appellant had advised the plaintiff that as there were defects in the plaint it was neces-sary to amend the plaint and he obtained the signatures of Satara Begum on a blank sheet and that instead of seeking an amendment in the plaint the appellant filed an application for withdrawal of suit and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In the complaint it was further stated that the appellant did not inform the complainant that the suit had been withdrawn and further that he obtained signatures of Satara Begum on another blank sheet for the purpose of filing an application for transfer of the case and subsequently the appellant filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the complaint it was also stated that the appellant was paid Rs 300 as fees and Rs 150 as expenses and that even though there was no instruction by the client (Satara Begum) to withdraw the suit and to file an application for maintenance, the appellant had with-drawn the suit and had filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complaint regarding withdrawal of the suit and filing the application under Section 125 CrPC in lieu thereafter without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and his daughter Satara Begum had been fully substantiated. The State Bar Council held that the appellant was guilty of professional and other misconduct. The State Bar Council, therefore, ordered that the appell-ant be suspended from practice for a period of one year. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order of the State Bar Council has been dismissed by the Bar Council of India by the impugned order dated 14-8-1980.
2. We have heard Shri B. Kanta Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal and Shri R. Bana, the learned counsel for Respondent 2. We have also perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Bar Council of India holding that the appellant is guilty of professional and other misconduct having withdrawn the suit filed by the daughter of the complainant and in filing the application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even though no such instruction had been given to him in that regard. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
