Chander Prakash Tyagi v Benarasi Das

(2015) 8 SCC 506

 FACTS
⚫ Respondent files suit in civil court engaging the
appellant as lawyer for securing the guardianship of his
grandson Komal Arora after the death of his son Avtar
Singh.
⚫ The respondent alleged that the appellant advocate was
in collusion with the opponents namely Dilawar and
Nazim and the case was dismissed for non prosecution.
⚫ The respondent further showed proof of all documents
like acceptance of case file by the appellant as well as
payment of fees.
⚫ Subsequently a case was filed by Dilawar and Nazim
against the repondents grandson and the appellant was
engaged.
 Facts (continued)
⚫ The Respondent issued a notice to the appellant asking
him to disengage himself but the appellant did not care
to do so.
⚫ This led to the respondent having to file a case in the
State Bar Council.
⚫ The appellant although admitted to taking up the case,
he claimed that he disengaged himself the moment he
got to know that this was a case against Komal Arora.
⚫ He further pleaded that the case for appointment of
guardian and the suit for specific performance of
contract were of different nature, and he did not
commit any misconduct.
 Facts (continued)
⚫ The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council
dismissed the complaint, in view of the fact that the
advocate (present appellant) had withdrawn his
Vakalatnama from the two suits, and accepted the plea that
the two proceedings, one filed on behalf of Komal Arora
and the other two filed against him, were of different
nature.
⚫ The Respondent further appealed before the Disciplinary
Committee of BCI and they held that the appellant is guilty
of misconduct, and his right to practice as an advocate was
suspended for a period of one year and he was further
directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/-, out of which Rs.1,000/-
was required to be deposited with Advocates’ Welfare
Fund of B.C.I.
 Issues
⚫ The main issue in this case was whether the appellant
advocate was guilty of breach of misconduct under
Section 35 of the Advocates Act as well as whether his
act was in violation of Regulation 33 of Section II of
Part VI of Bar Council of India Rules.
 Laws Involved
⚫ Section 35 of the Advocates Act states that Punishment
of advocates for misconduct. – Where on receipt of a
complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason
to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty
of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the
case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.
⚫ Regulation 33 of Section II of Part VI of Bar Council
of India Rules states that “An advocate who has, at any
time, advised in connection with the institution of a
suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings, or
acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the
opposite party.”
 Arguments Advanced
⚫ The appellants contended that the proceedings
under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in
which he was engaged by the complainant for his
appointment as guardian of his minor grandson Komal
Arora, and the suits filed on behalf of Dilawar, though in
respect of same property, were of totally different nature, as
such it cannot be said that the appellant has committed any
misconduct.
⚫ It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the
complainant did not pay the fee and took the papers back
from him, and he (complainant) himself was prosecuting
the case under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 personally,
the appellant is not responsible for dismissal of the case for
non-prosecution.
 Arguments Advanced
⚫ The Respondents argued that the argued that the guilt
of misconduct on the part of the advocate was
established on record from the certified copies of the
papers and the admissions made by the appellant.
 Analysis
⚫ The courts after hearing both the parties came to the
conclusion that the advocate has breached his duty and
responsibility to his client under Regulation 33 and is
liable to be held guilty and charged as per the BCI.
⚫ The court further held that an advocate has a moral
responsibility towards society at large and any form of
misconduct of professional ethics must be viewed
strictly and this is of such instance where he has taken
up a case of the opposing party.
 Case Laws
⚫ In V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and others, this Court
has held that where advocate finds there would be conflict
of interest in taking up a case of his client, he should not
accept the brief of such client, against interest of his earlier
client.
⚫ In Dhanraj Singh Choudhary v. Nathulal Vishwakarma,
discussing the nobility of the profession of lawyers, this
Court has made following observations: -
⚫ Any compromise with the law’s nobility as a profession is
bound to affect the faith of the people in the rule of law
and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has
to be viewed seriously. A person practising law has an
obligation to maintain probity and high standard of
professional ethics and morality.”
 Case Laws (continued)
⚫ In OP Sharma vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana it was
held that An advocate’s duty is as important as that of a
Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the
society. A client’s relationship with his/her advocate is
underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act
with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional
functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct
should also be diligent and should conform to the
requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital
role in the preservation of society and justice system. An
advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law
and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to
function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles
of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and
unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct
militates against the fundamental foundation of the public
 Conclusion
⚫ The Supreme Court was correct in arriving at this
decision as this is a clear case of violation by the
Appellant.
⚫ Unless the Appellant could prove that he had no
knowledge that this was the opposite party and he
withdrew immediately which is highly unlikely, this is
a clear cut case of breach and misconduct under
Section 35.
⚫ Therefore the quantum of punishment is justified.