The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by an advocate against a disciplinary order holding him guilty of professional misconduct. The respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 alleging negligence in depositing costs for a quashing petition. During proceedings, the parties resolved the misunderstanding, and the complainant filed an affidavit withdrawing the complaint. The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI proceeded to adjudicate, holding the advocate guilty and imposing a penalty. The Supreme Court found that the Committee failed to consider the withdrawal affidavit and lack of evidence, violating procedural fairness. The Court set aside the order, emphasizing that the complaint's basis had vanished upon resolution.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Advocates Act) against the judgment dated 4th April, 2025 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI) -- The Disciplinary Committee had held the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act for alleged failure to deposit costs and absence from court hearing -- The Court found that the Disciplinary Committee ignored the sworn affidavit dated 15th December, 2022 filed by the respondent-complainant withdrawing the complaint and expressing satisfaction with the appellant's services -- The Court held that the substratum of the complaint ceased to exist upon amicable resolution and withdrawal -- The Court also noted that no evidence was led by the complainant, and the appellant was denied the right to cross-examination, rendering the finding unsustainable -- The impugned judgment was set aside, and the penalty of Rs.1 Lakh with suspension threat was quashed
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment dated 4th April, 2025 of the Disciplinary Committee of BCI, and quashed the penalty imposed on the appellant-advocate
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 81
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 77 of 2026
Date of Decision: 2026-01-29
Case Title: Whether the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India erred in holding the appellant-advocate guilty of professional misconduct despite the complainant's affidavit withdrawing the complaint and lack of evidence
Before Judge: Vikram Nath J. , Sandeep Mehta J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 94
Advocate(s): J.S. Thakur
Appellant: Monty Goyal
Respondent: Navrang Singh
Nature of Litigation: Disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct against an advocate
Remedy Sought: Appellant-advocate seeking setting aside of disciplinary order holding him guilty and imposing penalty
Filing Reason: Appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against the Disciplinary Committee's judgment dated 4th April, 2025
Previous Decisions: Disciplinary Committee of BCI held appellant guilty of professional misconduct and imposed penalty of Rs.1 Lakh with suspension threat; earlier, High Court quashed FIR after costs were deposited
Issues: Whether the Disciplinary Committee erred in holding the appellant guilty despite the complainant's affidavit withdrawing the complaint Whether the finding of professional misconduct was sustainable without evidence and cross-examination
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued that the complaint was withdrawn by affidavit and the dispute was resolved Respondent's counsel fairly submitted that the complainant had sworn an affidavit withdrawing allegations
Ratio Decidendi: Once a complainant withdraws a disciplinary complaint by sworn affidavit and expresses satisfaction with the advocate's services, the substratum of the complaint ceases to exist, and holding the advocate guilty without considering this material aspect is unsustainable; additionally, findings of professional misconduct require substantiation through evidence and afford the right to cross-examination
Judgment Excerpts: The Disciplinary Committee completely glossed over the material and vital aspect while holding the appellant-advocate guilty The substratum of the complaint had ceased to exist once the dispute was amicably resolved and the complaint was sought to be withdrawn The appellant-advocate has been held guilty of professional misconduct merely on the basis of bald allegations without the complainant being examined on oath and without affording the right of cross-examination
Procedural History: FIR registered against respondent in 2018 -- High Court allowed quashing petition subject to costs in 2018 -- Costs not deposited, petition dismissed in 2018 -- Application for recall filed, High Court restored petition with enhanced costs in 2020 -- Respondent filed complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act before State Bar Council -- Parties settled, complainant filed affidavit withdrawing complaint in 2022 -- High Court quashed FIR in 2022 -- Matter transferred to BCI Disciplinary Committee, which held appellant guilty in 2025 -- Appeal filed to Supreme Court in 2026
