JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN
V.
ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDARY AND ORS
(2011) 14 SCC 105
FACTS OF THE CASE…
• Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran, (Appellant) formerly known as “Jaipur Development
Authority”, had various cases before the Land Acquisition Authority in various reference
matters
• The Appeallant had Respondent No. 1 on a retainer to represent themselves in these
cases for a fixed sum of fee
• In a particular reference case before the Jaipur Civil Court, Respondent No. 1had to
appear and represent the Appellant who were the defendants in that particular case
• The Appellants had given express instructions to the Respondent to appear in the matter
and to not delay the case
• The Respondent No. 1 failed to discharge his duty on three instances
• 1. He failed to file a written statement on a particular date and did not appear as well on
later instances which led to the court to close the opportunity to file a written
statement
• 2. Respondent No. 1 failed to file evidence before the court even though the other party
produced all the evidence
• 3. The Court decided the order against the Appellant and the Respondent did no
intimate the Appellant regarding the same as well
• The Appellant came to know of the award when execution petitions were filed by Respondent
No. 2 and wife of Respondent No. 3
• The Appellant filed a case before the SBC, Rajasthan alleging collusion as Respondent No. 2
worked in the same chambers as Respondent No. 1 and as Respondent No. 3 was the brother
–in-law of Respondent No. 1 whose wife had filed the execution petition
• The State Bar Council handed the matter over to the Disciplinary Committee of the SBC which
failed to complete the case within a period of 1 year and the matter was then handed over to
the Bar Council of India
• The BCI dismissied the compliant stating that the case has no merits and the Appellants have
preferred this Appeal under Section 38 of the Act.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 colluded with one another to direct the litigation
in a particular manner so as to earn and share profits from the case?
2. Whether Respondent No. 1 had any duty to disclose the conflict of interest before the
Appellants ?
3. Whether the lapses and default by the Respondent would amount to professional
misconduct?
ANALYSIS…
1. Collusion by Respondent No. 1,2 and 3
• The Court examined the contentions by the Appellants and the Respondents and looked at the
sequence of dates and events in the case
• The Court held that the involvement of Respondent No. 2 and 3 in the present case was at a
much latter stage and because of the same, the cannot be involved in the present matter as such
• The Court held that there was no form of collusion as such.
• The court did not pay any heed to the arguments of the counsel for the appellants that in
various cases, after engagement of Respondent No. 1, he had appeared for his sister for the
proceedings.
2. Disclosure of conflict of interest
• The court held that because of the fact that he was a retaining counsel in the case and he
had signed an engagement letter as well which stated that all form of knowledge must be
disclosed
• Respondent No. 1 was deemed to be guilty for not disclosing the conflict of interest
before the Appellants
3. Lapses and Defualt by Respondent No.1
• The court held that even though there is no collusion, there is failure on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 to disclose all the facts of the case
• The Court also held that that the default and lapses point towards a professional
misconduct and held that Respondent No. 1 is guilty of the same
• The Court looked at two judgements in particular to arrive at this conclusion -
• V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan and others reported in (1979) 1 SCC 308 - a three
Judges Bench of this Court has stated and outlined the duties and responsibilities of a
counsel.
• In paragraph 30 of the said judgment this Court has held that counsel's paramount duty
is to the client and accordingly where he forms an opinion that a conflict of interest
exists, his duty is to advise the client that he should engage some other lawyer.
• The Court further went on to hold that the relation between a lawyer and his client is
highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character
requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith and that it is purely a personal
relationship, involving the highest personal trust and confidence which cannot be
delegated without consent.
• Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Gurdial Singh reported in (1998) 7 SCC 24 wherein this Court
has held that charge of professional misconduct is in the nature of quasi criminal charge
and due to the same, it is required to be established not by preponderance of
probabilities, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
• The court held that the Respondent No. 1 is guilty of professional misconduct and
suspended his advocates license for a period of six months
• The Court acquitted Respondent No. 2 and 3 from the charges of collusion and profit
sharing due to lack of evidence pertaining to the allegations
• The Court has failed to appreciate the evidence given by the Counsel of the Appellants,
as in the judgement, they admit the fact that various correspondences were made
between the Respondents about the matter in hand, before the Arbitral award was
passed which all point to a collusion
