Decided on-: February 26, 1997
Bench-: Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal & Hon'ble Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Judgment By-: Hon'ble Justice S.C. Agrawal
FACTS
Prahlad Saran Gupta, the appellant, was representing the decree-holder in a case in Ghaziabad. A complaint was filed against Gupta by Rajendra Prasad, a partner of the firm M/S. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, accusing him of colluding with the judgment debtor. The complaint alleged that Gupta collected Rs. 1,600 but only paid Rs. 100 to the decree holder, keeping Rs. 1,500 for himself. Gupta didn't pay the amount to the decree holder for eight months, causing distress. The appellant later deposited the amount in court before appealing against the Bar Council’s disciplinary proceedings.
ISSUES
Retaining Rs. 1,500 from the settlement sum and failing to promptly remit it to the decree-holder.
Imposing a fee of Rs. 245 for appointing another counsel to prolong the execution proceedings.
Mishandling the execution case and intentionally employing delay tactics.
Initiating legal proceedings in the incorrect court, indicating professional negligence.
The central question before the court was whether the appellant committed serious professional misconduct.
JUDGMENT
The Disciplinary Committee dismissed the allegations regarding mishandling the execution case and filing in the wrong court. They acknowledged the appellant's explanation for not seeking permission under Order 21 Rule 72 C.P.C., referring to amendments by the Allahabad High Court. The Committee didn't consider the appellant's involvement in money lending, citing a single case of loan advancement with interest.
However, the Committee found the appellant guilty of gross professional misconduct for wrongfully holding Rs. 1,500 from the settlement. The Supreme Court, upon review, agreed with this finding, emphasizing that as a senior counsel, the appellant was expected to uphold the highest professional standards. The court stated that Gupta's retention of the amount for eight months without proper justification violated professional ethics. The appellant didn't return the money to the decree holder or the judgment debtor until depositing it in court. The court deemed such conduct unacceptable, particularly from a senior counsel, constituting gross professional misconduct. As a remedy, the Supreme Court reprimanded the appellant in the interest of justice.
Commentaires