THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
BCI TR. CASE NO. 81/1994
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case was initially filed before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. However, as it was
not disposed of within a year as required under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961, it was transferred
to the Bar Council of India for resolution. The complainant alleged professional misconduct against the
respondent, an advocate practicing in Jagdalpur, Bastar, Madhya Pradesh.
The allegations included:
1. The respondent, as the Power of Attorney for Smt. Daulat Bai, filed a suit on 7.5.1992 for recovery of
losses against Deo Krishna and 13 others (Case No. 39A/1992).
2. He simultaneously represented defendants Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 14 in the same suit by filing vakalathnama
on their behalf.
3. Another civil suit (No. 129A/1992) regarding the same property was also filed by the respondent on behalf
of Ramakrishna Tiwari against Suresha Deokrishna Mishra and others.
4. Allegations of conflict of interest and violation of professional conduct rules were raised due to his
representation of multiple parties in cases concerning the same subject matter.
5. The respondent allegedly obtained a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from the State Bank of India, Jagdalpur, for
purchasing a truck under a self-employment scheme after enrolling as an advocate.
6. Additional allegations stated that he was practicing as an advocate without membership in any District
or Tahsil Bar Association in Bastar District.
7. There were claims that he misused his position by sending threatening letters to various departments as
an Organiser of the Legal Cell of the Congress (I) Party, influencing government appointments.
8. A criminal complaint was filed against him under Sections 354 and 506(B) IPC by the District
Employment Officer, Jagdalpur.
ISSUES
The Bar Council framed the following issues:
1. Whether the respondent had a Power of Attorney for Smt. Daulat Bai and subsequently filed a suit on her
behalf?
2. Whether the respondent had also represented defendants Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 14 in the same case?
3. Whether the respondent withdrew from representing the defendants without harming the parties
involved?
4. Whether the respondent was practicing law without being a member of any Bar Association?
5. Whether the respondent was involved in professional misconduct by engaging in business activities
while being an advocate?
6. Whether the respondent’s actions amounted to professional or other misconduct?
7. Relief and costs.
JUDGMENT
Upon examining the facts and evidence, the Bar Council found:
1. It was admitted by the respondent that he filed vakalathnama for both the plaintiff and certain
defendants in the same case. This was a violation of professional ethics, though he later withdrew from
representing the defendants upon realizing his mistake.
2. The allegations concerning the loan were not substantiated, as there was no clear evidence proving the
respondent had engaged in transport business while practicing law.
3. The claim regarding the requirement for membership in a Bar Association was dismissed, as there was
no rule mandating such a membership for practicing law.
4. The accusations of the respondent misusing his position for undue influence were not proven with
sufficient evidence.
5. The complaint regarding the criminal case filed against him was considered irrelevant in determining
professional misconduct.
The Committee concluded that while the respondent’s actions constituted professional misconduct, they
were not of a severe nature warranting disbarment. Instead, a punishment of reprimand was ordered
against the respondent, with a warning to act cautiously in the future to prevent a recurrence of such
incidents.
ORDER:
- The respondent was reprimanded for his professional misconduct.
- A copy of the judgment was to be sent to the respondent for his records.
- No costs were awarded.
