Suresh Shivarao Hattiangadi Vs. N.D. Upadhyaya (Dead) through Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5217 of 1998
Petitioner: Suresh Shivarao Hattiangadi
Respondent: N.D. Upadhyaya (Dead) through Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5217 of 1998
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 2001
Head Note:
ADVOCATES
Advocates Act, 1961
Section 35 with Bar Council of India Rules – Rule 69 – Misconduct – Advocate alleged to have taken up full time service in private company – Address also changed – No intimation of change of address or employment given – However, no averment or evidence to show that he practised law during this time. Held that breach of rule 69 would be technical . Advocate was under obligation to intimate change of address and employment. Hence, suspension of licence set aside and only reprimanded. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the disciplinary committee, Bar Council of India on 27th June, 1998 holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and in exercise of powers under section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 suspended his licence to practice for a period of two years. At the time when appeal was admitted to hearing, stay of the impugned order was granted.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant, while on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, got employment with M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd., (renamed as Alfa-Leval Ltd.) and also changed his address. He did not give any intimation to the Bar Council of Maharashtra either about the change of address or his joining M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd., as a full time employee. On a complaint made to the Bar Council of Maharashtra by the complainant – Shri N.D. Upadhyaya, the state bar council took up the complaint but since the proceedings were not completed within a period of one year, the matter was transferred to the disciplinary committee, Bar Council of India in terms of section 36(B) of the Advocates Act, 1961 when the order, challenged before us, came to be made.
3. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is no averment whatsoever to the effect that during the period when the appellant joined the services of M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd. he also continued to practice law. Indeed, it was an obligation on the part of the appellant to have informed the bar council both about the change of his address and his having taken up full time employment, but since there is nothing on the record to show that during the period the appellant practised law, the breach of rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules would only be technical. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of suspension of the licence was too harsh and uncalled for.
4. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and set aside the order suspending the licence of the appellant to practice for a period of two years and instead reprimand him under section 35(3)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
5. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the disciplinary committee, Bar Council of India on 27th June, 1998 holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and in exercise of powers under section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 suspended his licence to practice for a period of two years. At the time when appeal was admitted to hearing, stay of the impugned order was granted.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant, while on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, got employment with M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd., (renamed as Alfa-Leval Ltd.) and also changed his address. He did not give any intimation to the Bar Council of Maharashtra either about the change of address or his joining M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd., as a full time employee. On a complaint made to the Bar Council of Maharashtra by the complainant – Shri N.D. Upadhyaya, the state bar council took up the complaint but since the proceedings were not completed within a period of one year, the matter was transferred to the disciplinary committee, Bar Council of India in terms of section 36(B) of the Advocates Act, 1961 when the order, challenged before us, came to be made.
3. A perusal of the complaint shows that there is no averment whatsoever to the effect that during the period when the appellant joined the services of M/s. Vulcan Leval Ltd. he also continued to practice law. Indeed, it was an obligation on the part of the appellant to have informed the bar council both about the change of his address and his having taken up full time employment, but since there is nothing on the record to show that during the period the appellant practised law, the breach of rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules would only be technical. In the established facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of suspension of the licence was too harsh and uncalled for.
4. We, therefore, partly allow this appeal and set aside the order suspending the licence of the appellant to practice for a period of two years and instead reprimand him under section 35(3)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
5. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
