Top
News Updates

SC Upholds BCI's Order Dismissing Complaint Against Lawyer Alleging Professional Misconduct [Read Order]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 July 2020 4:16 PM GMT
SC Upholds BCIs Order Dismissing Complaint Against Lawyer Alleging Professional Misconduct [Read Order]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court, last week, upheld an order passed by Bar Council of India dismissing a complaint alleging professional misconduct by a lawyer.

Bindu Kumar Mohanlal Shah was the counsel for defendant in a suit filed by one Harmanbhai Umedbhai Patel against a person who allegedly encroached a property which was a 'gaucher land'.

The complaint before the Bar Council was that the lawyer issued a public notice which has misled the public about the nature of title of the property. The lawyer had issued a public notice that Vithalbhai Babarbhai Patel was declared as the owner of the said land.

Bar Council of India dismissed the complaint finding that there was no misconduct on the part of the lawyer.

Assailing the order in appeal before the Apex Court,the complainant contended  that an advocate has not only a duty to his client but to the Court and society as well. Reliance was placed on two earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in  2001 (2) SCC 221 D.P. Chadha versus Triyugi Narain Mishra  and 2016 (6) SCC 1 titled State of Punjab and Anr. Versus Brijeshwar Singh Chahal. In DP Chadha, it was observed that a lawyer in discharging his professional assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his opponent, a duty to the court, a duty to the society at large and a duty to himself. 

Perusing the Public notice issued by the Advocate, the bench comprising Justices  L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat said: "Though the respondent-advocate did not mention the name of his client in the public notice, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was right in holding that the respondent did not commit any moral turpitude amounting to any professional misconduct. "

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order





Next Story