Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, read with Order 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, filed by an advocate challenging the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. The appellant, Harish Chander Singh, was held guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for two years. The matter arose from a complaint by one Daya Ram, forwarded by S.N. Tripathi, President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. Daya Ram alleged that he had engaged the appellant as his counsel in a consolidation case concerning his land. The appellant persuaded him to execute a mukhtarnama (power of attorney) in favour of Syed Husain Ahmad, described as the appellant's junior. The complainant stated that the contents of the mukhtarnama were not read over to him; he executed it on faith. Subsequently, on 25th January 1972, Syed Husain Ahmad, acting as the complainant's mukhtar, executed a sale deed transferring the complainant's land to Nand Kishore Singh, who was the appellant's father. The complainant alleged that he was duped and deceived by both advocates. Syed Husain Ahmad, the co-delinquent, eventually admitted his role, pleaded inexperience, and sought pardon, but the appellant denied any knowledge of the transaction, claimed he was not staying with his father, and argued that Syed Husain Ahmad was not his junior. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council could not dispose of the complaint within one year, so the matter stood transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee recorded evidence and held the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, imposing a two-year suspension; Syed Husain Ahmad was reprimanded. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the oral and documentary evidence and found several tell-tale circumstances: the appellant was the complainant's counsel; the appellant persuaded the complainant to execute the mukhtarnama in favour of Syed Husain Ahmad; Syed Husain Ahmad executed the sale deed in favour of Nand Kishore Singh; Nand Kishore Singh was the appellant's father; the mukhtarnama dated 18th January 1972 gave full power to dispose of property; the sale deed dated 25th January 1972 was executed by Syed Husain Ahmad as agent of the complainant in favour of Nand Kishore Singh; and the Kutumb Register showed that Nand Kishore Singh and the appellant, father and son, lived in the same house. The appellant's attempts to show lack of knowledge or strained relations with his father failed because no evidence was produced. The Court held that these circumstances clearly pointed to the appellant's guilt and that the complainant was duped by his advocate who misused the confidence reposed in him. The suspension of two years was found to be neither harsh nor disproportionate. During the proceedings, the Court sought information about the sale deed and the parties, but the appellant's counsel could not provide an affidavit. Notices were issued to Daya Ram and Nand Kishore Singh regarding the impugned sale deed, but both were found dead, and it was revealed that the sale deed had already been held fictitious and not binding on Daya Ram by consolidation authorities. Consequently, the notices were discharged. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs and vacated the interim relief granted earlier.
Headnote
A) Professional Misconduct - Advocate-Client Relationship - Misuse of Power of Attorney to Transfer Client's Property to Advocate's Father - Advocates Act, 1961, Section 38 (appeal) and professional conduct rules - The appellant, engaged as counsel, persuaded the complainant client to execute a mukhtarnama in favour of his junior; the junior then executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant's father. Circumstantial evidence including the familial relationship, same village residence, and living together established the appellant's involvement. Held that the appellant duped the client and misused confidence reposed in him, constituting professional misconduct (Paras not mentioned). B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Bar Council of India - Transfer of Complaint from State Bar Council - Advocates Act, 1961 - The complaint before the State Bar Council could not be disposed of within one year and stood transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India heard parties, recorded evidence, and found the appellant guilty. Held that the order was supported by tell-tale circumstances on record and suspension for two years was not disproportionate (Paras not mentioned). C) Appeal under Section 38 - Scope of Review - Advocates Act, 1961, Section 38; Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order 5 - The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found no reason to interfere with the disciplinary committee's findings. It also noted subsequent developments regarding the sale deed being held fictitious in consolidation proceedings. Held that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with costs, interim relief vacated (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant advocate was guilty of professional misconduct by misusing the client's power of attorney to transfer property to his own father; and whether the two-year suspension imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. The order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for two years was upheld. Interim relief granted during pendency was vacated.
Law Points
- An advocate must maintain fiduciary loyalty to the client
- misusing a power of attorney to transfer the client's property to a close relative constitutes professional misconduct
- circumstantial evidence can establish misconduct
- Bar Council of India can transfer and dispose of complaints from State Bar Council
- two-year suspension for such misconduct is proportionate.
