N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990
Petitioner: N.K. Jagannivasa Rao
Respondent: N. Shivananda Rao
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 01, 1997
Head Note:
ADVOCATES
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35 – Misconduct – Wrong statement by advocate about his income being less than Rs. 10,000/- per month – Stipend of Rs. 500/- obtained from Govt. – Fact established. Held that it amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. No ground to interfere in orders of Bar Council of India imposing punishment of reprimand.
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35 – Misconduct – Wrong statement by advocate about his income being less than Rs. 10,000/- per month – Stipend of Rs. 500/- obtained from Govt. – Fact established. Held that it amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. No ground to interfere in orders of Bar Council of India imposing punishment of reprimand.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by N.K. Jaganni-vasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appell-ant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false state-ment he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such miscon-duct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by N.K. Jaganni-vasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appell-ant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false state-ment he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such miscon-duct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
