CASE STUDY
“ L.C. GOYAL
VS
MRS. SURESH JOSHI & ORS ”
1
INTRODUCTION
A respectable and honourable career is advocacy is a dream for all aspirants. However, an
advocate must comply strictly with professional ethics or he may be responsible for professional
misconduct. The word ‘Professional Misconduct’ implies unethical actions. It implies, in the
legal sense, an act intentionally committed by the people involved in the profession with the
wrong intention. For his selfish ends, it implies any action or actions of an advocate in breach of
professional ethics. It leads to ‘professional misconduct’ if an act results in a conflict with his
profession and renders him ineligible to be in the profession. In other words, an act that
disqualifies an advocate from continuing in the field of law. It includes:
1. In betraying a client’s trust
2. In attempting to practise fraud by means 3. To trick the court or the opposing party or his
counsel
2
FACTS OF THE CASE
Sometime in September 1989, the complainant engaged the appellant for filing a suit for
injunction on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi. The appellant filed the suit. The
appellant is alleged to have charged Rs.25,102/- towards payment of court fee and also Rs.389/-
for miscellaneous charges total amounting to Rs.25,491/-, and also a further sum of Rs.6,500/-
out of which Rs.3,500/- was paid through cheque and a sum of Rs.3,000/- in cash. The appellant
gave receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of Rs.6,500/- as well as receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of
Rs.25,102/-. Sometime in 1992 the complainant came to know that the appellant has not
deposited the process fee and also did not press the application for interim injunction filed in the
suit. The complainant on an enquiry found that the appellant has misappropriated a sum of Rs.
25, 102/- and also did not take any steps towards the progress of the case. On being so told by the
complainant the appellant after realizing his mistake issued a cheque dated 31.3.93 for a sum of
Rs. 38,000/- on account of refund of court fee amount along with interest. The said cheque was
drawn on UCO Bank and the same was deposited in the account of the Union, namely, M/s.
Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi with the Central Bank of India. The said cheque bounced
due to insufficient funds. Later on when the complainant approached the appellant informing him
that the cheque has bounced the appellant asked the complainant to deposit the cheque again
with an assurance that this time the cheque would be honored but again the cheque when it was
deposited on 15.5.93 was dishonored with the remark’s insufficient funds. The complainant then
sent a notice dated 9.6.93 which remained unreplaced. Under such circumstances the
complainant filed a complaint before the Delhi Bar Council. Since the said complaint could not
be decided within the stipulated time it stood transferred to Bar Council of India. Before the Bar
Council of India the complainant examined herself as well as got exhibited various documents,
namely, Ext.C-1 - receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of Rs.6,500/-; Ext.C-2 - another receipt dated
6.10.89 which was in respect of a sum of Rs.25,102/-; Ext.C-3 - case file of the civil suit filed
before the High Court of Delhi; Ext.C-4 - cheque issued by the appellant dated 31.3.93 for a sum
of Rs.38,000/-; Ext C-5 & C-6. Memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank respectively with respect
to presentation of cheque and its dishonoring on account of insufficient funds; Ext.C-7 and C-8 -
memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank with respect to first presentation of cheque and its
dishonoring due to insufficient funds in the account of the appellant; Ext.C-9 - counter foil of
3
deposit of cheque in the account of Siemens Employees Union; Ext.C-14 the certificate issued by
the S.H.O., Police Station, Tilak Marg, New Delhi dated 28.7.95 to the effect that no complaint
was received from the appellant regarding theft of cheque book at Police Station, Tilak Marg.
Besides that the original file of the civil suit No.2688/89 was summoned by the Bar Council. The
appellant denied the allegations that he has received a sum of Rs.25,102/- towards payment of
court fee and also denied his signatures on Ext.C-1, C-2 and C-4 alleging that his signatures were
forged by the respondent herself. The Bar Council after considering the entire material found that
the appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,102/- from the respondent towards payment of court
fee which he never deposited in the Court and Ext.C-4 bears the signature of the appellant.
Consequently, the Bar Council after having arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has
committed professional misconduct, suspended his license to practice for a period of 5 years.
4
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether there is a professional misconduct?
Whether the court have jurisdiction ?
5
CASES REFERRED
Nishi Bhargava vs Bar Council Of Punjab And Haryana
R.C. Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
Thyssen Krupp Industries India vs Suresh Maruti Chougule
Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs State Of U.P. & Another
R. N. Kapoor Memorial vs Union Of India And Ors.
6
PROVISIONS OF LAW
Section 18 in THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Transfer of name from one State roll to another.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any person whose name is entered as an
advocate on the roll of any State Bar Council may make an application in the prescribed form to
the Bar Council of India for the transfer of his name from the roll of that State Bar Council to the
roll of any other State Bar Council and, on receipt of any such application the Bar Council of
India shall direct that the name of such person shall without the payment of any fee, be removed
from the roll of the first mentioned State Bar Council and entered in the roll of the other State
Bar Council and the State Bar Councils concerned shall comply with such direction: 1[Provided
that where any such application for transfer is made by a person against whom any disciplinary
proceeding is pending or where for any other reason it appears to the Bar Council of India that
the application for transfer has not been made bona fide and that the transfer should not be made,
the Bar Council of India may, after giving the person making the application an opportunity of
making a representation in this behalf, reject the application.]
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that where on an application made by an
advocate under sub-section (1), his name is transferred from the roll of one State Bar Council to
that of another, he shall retain the same seniority in the latter roll to which he was entitled in the
former roll.
7
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant advanced two submissions. The first
submission is that the appellant having denied his signatures on Exts. C-1, C-2 and C-4 it was
incumbent upon the Bar Council to have sought an opinion of a hand-writing expert for finding
out the genuineness of the signatures on those exhibits. He contended that the failure on the part
of the Bar Council to summon a hand-writing expert has resulted in grave injustice to the
appellant. The second submission is that the appellant has never received a sum of Rs.25,102/-
towards payment of court fee and the finding recorded by the Bar Council contrary to it is totally
per verse. Since both the submissions of learned counsel are over-lapping, propose to deal both
the submissions together.
8
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that The valuation of the suit given in
the plaint originally filed was purposely kept vague which was subsequently amended without
the knowledge of the complainant. Dishonoring of the cheque issued by the appellant Ex.C/4 by
the bank on account of insufficient fund in the account of the appellant. The complainant was not
beneficiary of Ex. C/4. The complainant sent two notices on behalf of M/s Siemens Union to the
appellant wherein she inter alia alleged, that a sum of Rs. 25,102/- was misappropriated by the
appellant under the pretext of payment of the court fee for the suit filed by the plaintiffs, that the
appellant did not press the application for injunction, and that the appellant misled the
complainant as regards the progress of the case. These notices were not replied to by the
appellant which is a material circumstance against the appellant when, receipt of the notices sent
to him have been admitted. No FIR lodged with regard to theft of the cheque book.
9
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE
The appellants counsel has given an undertaking on behalf of the appellant to the effect
that the appellant would conform to the standards of the legal profession and further, he has
deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs of the suit, we modify the order of the
Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India of suspending the appellants licence to practice for
a period five years by reducing it to two and a half years, provided the appellant also deposits
interest on Rs. 38,000/- w.e.f 31.3.93 till the date of payment of money to the plaintiffs @ Rs.
9% per annum. The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the Court which has
been invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank. The amount over and above Rs. 38,000/-
deposited by the appellant in this Court and an interest accrued on the fixed deposit shall be
adjusted towards interest payable by the appellant. The balance amount, if any, shall be paid by
the appellant within one month from the date of this judgment. In case the appellant fails to
deposit the foretasted amount within the stipulated period, our order reducing the suspension
period of the appellants licence to practice would stand recalled and all the consequences
provided in the order under appeal shall come into effect. The appellant shall also deposit the
cost as awarded by the Bar Council of India, as well as the costs of this appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. The appellant shall pay cost to the claimant which we
quantify at Rs.5,000/-.
10
REASONING OF THE JUDGMENT
The matter and perused the record, we find five established circumstances against the
appellant which are stated hereinafter.
(1) The valuation of the suit given in the plaint originally filed was purposely kept vague which
was subsequently amended without the knowledge of the complainant.
The suit was filed in 1989. However, the Registry of the High Court returned the plaint for
removing the following defects:
(i) That the prayer clause was not proper;
(ii) That exact value for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction were not mentioned; and
(iii) claim made and the court fee amount paid should also be stated.
On 26.9.89 the plaint was re-filed and a new para 50 was added. Prayer clause was also
amended. Clarification of the court fee amount was also made and paras 39, 40, 42 and 43 of the
plaint were also amended. In paragraphs 39, 40, 42 and 43 of the plaint the words fixed court fee
of Rs.20/- is affixed on the plaint were added. In paragraph 50 which was a new paragraph at
page 20 of the plaint, the value of each prayer has been tentatively fixed at Rs.200/- and the court
fee of Rs.20/- on each prayer has been affixed on the plaint were mentioned. Pages 20, 21 and 22
of the plaint did not bear the signatures of the complainant although all other pages of the plaint
were signed by the complainant. Thus it shows that initially no valuation was given in the plaint
but subsequently without any knowledge of the complainant pages 20 to 22 of the plaint were
substituted under the signatures of the appellant. Had the respondent been informed about the
substitution of these 3 pages of the plaint the same would have contained the signatures of the
complainant. When the plaint was originally filed the figures stated herein were not in the plaint
which facts are borne out from the report of the Registry of the Delhi High Court. The amount
mentioned in paras 39, 40, 42, 43 and addition of para 50 with respect to court fee was done by
the appellant as the same were not in existence when the plaint was filed at the first instance. The
aforesaid facts show that the valuation of the suit was purposely kept vague when the plaint was
filed for the first time so that the respondent-complainant may not able to know as to the actual
amount of court fee affixed on the plaint. The original plaint was summoned by the Bar Council
and after examining it the Bar Council recorded the following findings :
11
A prima facie look at this makes it clear that in column No.5 stamp paper towards court-
fees column has been left blank and no figure has been mentioned therein. At S.No.1 against the
memo of parties, figure of Rs.140/- has been mentioned and over Vakala Nama Rs.2.75 has been
mentioned. It is further apparent that alignment of the amount of Rs.140/- court fees paid for
parties was not typed at the same time as the alignment of the type clearly shows that particulars
and objects mentioned at the top of the column horizontally same alignment whereas figure of
Rs.140 is slightly below which clearly indicates that this was put subsequently. Similarly, figure
of Rs.2.75 at S.No.3 appears to have been mentioned subsequently as Vakala Nama and figure of
22 appears to have been typed at the same time and Rs.2.75 is somewhat on lower level whereas,
had all these figures been typed at the same time, they would have been in the same line and
alignment. Thus, it appears that figure of Rs.140/- and Rs.2.75 have been typed subsequently.
The aforesaid finding recorded by the Bar Council and are of the view that the aforesaid
established circumstances clearly show that exact amount of court fee to be paid on the plaint
was purposely kept vague and subsequently three pages were substituted so that the complainant
may not able to know the exact amount of court fee paid on the plaint.
The complainant alleged that when the appellant realized that the complainant has come
to know that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 25,491/-, he gave a cheque for a sum of Rs.
38,000/- which is Ext.C-4. The said cheque was drawn on UCO Bank and the same was
deposited in the Central Bank of India in the account of Union, viz., Siemens Employees Union,
New Delhi. But the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The appellant denied
his signature on Ext. C-4 and contended that his signature was forged by the complainant. It is in
this context that it was urged before the Bar Council of India that some hand- writing expert be
examined in order to find out the genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4. As stated above, the
cheque bounced not on account of the fact that the signature on Ext. C-4 was not tallying with
the specimen signature of the appellant kept with the Bank, but on account of insufficient funds.
Had the signature on Ext. C-4 been different, the bank would have returned the same with the
remark that the signature on Ext. C-4 was not tallying with the appellants specimen signature
kept with the bank. The memos Ext. C-6 and Ext. C-8 issued by the bank clearly show that
signature of the appellant on Ext. C-4 was not objected to by the bank, but the same was returned
with the remark insufficient fund. This circumstance shows that the signature on Ext. C-4 was
that of the appellant.
12
As seen earlier the cheque Ext. C-4, issued by the appellant was in favors of M/s.
Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi. The account payee cheque obviously was not issued in
the name of the complainant. By the aforesaid cheque the complainant was not going to gain
anything out of it. The amount normally would have been credited in the account of M/s.
Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi. Thus, this circumstance also shows that there was no
reason for the complainant to forge the signature of the appellant on Exts. C-1, C-2 and C-4.
The complainant sent two notices on behalf of M/s Siemens Union to the appellant
wherein she inter alia alleged, that a sum of Rs. 25,102/- was misappropriated by the appellant
under the pretext of payment of the court fee for the suit filed by the plaintiffs, that the appellant
did not press the application for injunction, and that the appellant misled the complainant as
regards the progress of the case. These notices were not replied to by the appellant which is a
material circumstance against the appellant when, receipt of the notices sent to him have been
admitted.
The case set up by the appellant before the Bar Council was that, in fact, the complainant
somehow managed to get his cheque book and she after forging his signature on one of the leaf
presented the same to the bank for payment. If it was true, why did the appellant not lodge any
FIR with the Tilak Marg Police Station regarding theft of the cheque book. However, it was
subsequently explained by the appellant that he did send a letter to the SHO of the said Police
Station. But, in normal course, FIR is not lodged by letter at the first instance. Moreover, SHO,
Tilak Marg Police Station gave a certificate Ext. C-14, to the effect that he did not receive any
registered letter or report from the appellant regarding theft of his cheque book.
These established circumstances stated above, clearly show that the signature on Exts. C-
1, C-2 and C-4 were that of the appellant himself. Moreover, during the course of hearing of the
case, we ourselves examined and compared the admitted signature of the appellant with that of
Ext. C-4 leaving nothing to chance lest any injustice is caused to the appellant. On comparison,
we found striking similarity between the admitted signature and that of the disputed one and
there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4. The circumstances
established in the present case speak for themselves and candidly point out towards the
misconduct committed by the appellant. When the established circumstantial evidence is so
patent that it leads to only one conclusion that the signature on Ext. C-4 was not forged; there
was no need for an opinion of a hand writing expert. We are, therefore, satisfied that the
13
established circumstantial evidence as well as the documentary evidence in the present case
show that the allegations of the complainant were well substantiated and in such circumstances
of the case, the Bar Council of India was justified in declining to summon a hand-writing expert
for finding out the genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The legal profession is known as a noble profession having high traditions and has been
catering to the need of the society for a very long time past. Thus the members of this profession
are expected to uphold those traditions and serve the society with sincerity and honestly. If such
are the expectations from a noble profession, its members must conduct themselves which may
be worthy of emulation. By doing any act which is contrary to the accepted norms and standards
of this profession, a member of the profession not only discredits himself, but also brings
disrepute to the profession to which he belongs. By such acts the credibility and reputation of the
profession as a whole comes under cloud. If any member of the profession falls from such
standards, he deserves punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct.
The term ‘Professional Misconduct’ in the simple sense means improper conduct. In legal
sense it means an act done willfully with a wrong intention by the people engaged in the
profession. It means any activity or behavior of an advocate in violation of professional ethics for
his selfish ends. If an act results in dispute to his profession and make him unfit of being in the
profession, it amounts to ‘Professional Misconduct’. In other words, an act which disqualifies an
advocate to continue in legal profession.
This appeal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act 1961 the instance of the appellant
who is a practicing Advocate of the High Court of Delhi as well as an Advocate on Record of
this Court is directed against the order dated 2.3.1998 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of India on a complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) whereby the Bar Council of India after having found that the appellant has
committed professional misconduct, suspended his license to practice for a period of five years.
14
Professionalism is not about perfectionism, everyone makes mistakes. However, it is
necessary to ensure that we learn from our mistakes. By being alert to some of the root causes of
unprofessional conduct we can do our very best in ensuring that we act as “true professionals”.
CONCLUSION
Legal Profession plays a great role in the society. he/she is an epochal in its nature as
they assist the process of achieving justice. These professionals have an ethical code of conduct
to follow. A lawyer while performing his professional liabilities has a duty towards his client, his
opponent, the court, the society and a duty towards himself.
It requires a high degree of dedication and willpower to strike a balance so as to perform
his task as suggested by the act, more so, the Bar Council of India plays a vital role in enacting
pandect. It must regularly monitor and accordingly bring about amendments in professional
ethics with changing the aura of the society.
It is an utmost important duty for an advocate to uphold the dignity and decorum of the
Court. He/she must not do anything to bring the Court into disrepute, and ensure that at no point,
he himself as well as others around him should not oversteps the limits of propriety given to
them.
15
16
