1.

Facts of the Case: Key Incidents

This case concerns an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, by N.B. Mirzan, an
advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Maharashtra, against the decision of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India. The case arose from a complaint by Mirzan’s former
client, Saidur Rehman, involving three instances of fraudulent demands and misappropriation of
funds between 1961 and 1964.

Initial Engagement (1961–1962):

n
● Rehman engaged Mirzan in obstructionist proceedings (Suit No. 2491/1961). Noor
Mohammed, a former client, introduced them.

he
● Mirzan demanded Rs. 190 for court-fee stamps—unnecessary in such cases—and gave
no receipt.

●
tep
On April 26, 1962, Rs. 975 was collected from Rehman’s wife, allegedly for a court rent
deposit. A vague receipt was issued.

● On August 16, 1962, Rs. 250 was collected for transferring the rent bill into Rehman’s
name—an action not legally feasible.
aS
The obstructionist notice was discharged in Rehman’s favor on September 13, 1962.

Subsequent Litigation and Disputes (1963–1964):

hu

● In 1963, a fresh ejectment suit was filed by the landlord. Mirzan continued as Rehman’s
counsel.

● On September 25, 1963, the court ordered rent arrears to be deposited. Rehman
Jos

assumed the earlier Rs. 975 had been deposited.

● In 1964, Mirzan demanded more money, prompting Rehman to question the earlier
transactions.

Complaint and Settlement (1964):

● After exchanging legal notices, a settlement was mediated by Mr. Qureshi in October
1964, wherein Mirzan agreed to repay Rs. 1,000 in installments.
 ● Mirzan sent Rs. 150 via money order but later claimed it was a charitable loan, not a
settlement payment.

● On October 27, 1964, Rehman filed a professional misconduct complaint with the Bar
Council of Maharashtra.

Disciplinary Proceedings:

● The State Bar Council’s Disciplinary Committee found Mirzan guilty on all counts and
permanently suspended him on October 3, 1968.

n
● On appeal, the Bar Council of India upheld the findings but reduced the punishment to a
five-year suspension, conditional upon Mirzan repaying Rs. 850 within two months

he
(November 30, 1969).

Supreme Court Appeal:

●
tep
Mirzan appealed under Section 38 to the Supreme Court, which heard the case and
delivered judgment on September 15, 1971.
aS

2. Professional Misconduct and Legal Framework

Nature of Misconduct:
hu

Mirzan’s acts constituted professional misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. He deceived
his client by:
Jos

1. Demanding Rs. 190 under false pretenses.

2. Misrepresenting Rs. 975 as a court-mandated deposit.

3. Claiming Rs. 250 for a legally unfeasible rent bill transfer.

These actions involved moral turpitude and a breach of fiduciary duty.

Applicable Legal Provisions:

 ● Section 35: Authorizes disciplinary proceedings by State Bar Councils.

● Section 36: Bar Council of India’s powers for disciplinary action.

● Section 37: Appeal to Bar Council of India.

● Section 38: Appeal to the Supreme Court.

● Section 42: Disciplinary Committees have powers of a civil court.

While the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, were not formally cited, similar principles guided the

n
procedure.

he
Precedents:

● In Re: An Advocate (AIR 1962 SC 1337): Defined dishonest acts like misappropriation
as misconduct.

●
tep
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (AIR 1975 SC 2092): Emphasized
procedural rigor in misconduct proceedings.
aS
Contempt:

No contempt proceedings were involved, as the misconduct occurred outside court and solely
involved the advocate-client relationship.
hu

3. Arguments from Both Sides

Jos

Appellant: N.B. Mirzan’s Arguments

● Rs. 190 Claim: No specific denial in writing; instead, argued non-receipt by asserting he
issued receipts for all payments.

● Rs. 975 Claim: Acknowledged receiving the money but alleged it was returned on
September 13, 1963, through a receipt (Ext. 2) bearing thumb impressions of Rehman,
his wife, and brother.

● Claimed he intended to deposit the money if the court ordered it.

 ● Rs. 250 Claim: Initially denied receipt; later offered conflicting explanations—voluntary
payment, fees for a declaratory suit, or court expenses.

● Money Order Defense: Claimed the Rs. 150 sent in October 1964 was a loan to a
distressed Rehman, not part of the settlement.

● Challenged the credibility of Rehman’s witnesses and authenticity of their testimony.

Respondents: Disciplinary Committee and Saidur Rehman

● Asserted that all three payments were based on fraudulent claims exploiting the clients’

n
illiteracy and trust.

he
● Rs. 190: No court-fee stamps were required.

● Rs. 975: No court order ever required such a deposit; Ext. 2 was fabricated.
tep
● Rs. 250: Transferring a rent bill legally required the landlord’s consent; Mirzan’s
explanations were inconsistent.

● Witness Support: Noor Mohammed corroborated the Rs. 190 payment; Qureshi
confirmed the October 1964 settlement.
aS
● Criticized Ext. 2 as suspicious due to its format and unreliable witnesses.

● Emphasized repeated fraud and moral turpitude as justification for strict punishment.
hu

4. Orders of the Court and Bar Council

Jos

Supreme Court Judgment (1971):

● Appeal Dismissed: Justice D.G. Palekar upheld the findings and five-year suspension
with repayment condition.

● Findings Affirmed:

1. Rs. 190 demanded fraudulently and misappropriated.

 2. Rs. 975 misrepresented as a court deposit and not returned; Ext. 2 deemed
suspicious.

3. Rs. 250 misappropriated with no legal basis.

● Reasoning: The Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent factual findings and
deemed the evidence credible.

● Punishment Upheld: No arguments were raised against the punishment; the Court
accepted the Bar Council of India’s decision.

n
Bar Council Disciplinary Findings:

he
● State Committee (1968): Found Mirzan guilty on all counts; ordered permanent
suspension and surrender of his sanad.

● Bar Council of India (1969): Confirmed guilt; modified punishment to a five-year

tep
suspension with repayment of Rs. 850. Failure to pay would result in reinstating
permanent suspension.
aS
5. Critical Analysis
Strengths of the Judgment:
hu

● Protects Legal Integrity: Reinforces the disciplinary mechanisms of the Advocates Act by
punishing breaches of trust.

● Strong Evidentiary Basis: Relied on well-substantiated findings, credible witnesses, and

Jos

analysis of dubious documents like Ext. 2.

● Proportionate Punishment: The Bar Council of India’s moderation of the penalty

balances deterrence and fairness.

● Due Process Compliance: Procedures under Sections 35 and 42 were followed,

including opportunity for defense and appeals.

● Support for Vulnerable Clients: Emphasized the duty of advocates not to exploit illiterate
or unaware clients.
 ● Judicial Restraint: The Court appropriately respected the role of specialized Disciplinary
Committees.

Weaknesses and Criticisms:

● Lack of Punishment Analysis: The Court missed an opportunity to evaluate if the

five-year suspension was proportionate or sufficient.

● Ambiguity of “Moral Turpitude”: The term was applied but not clearly defined, risking
inconsistent future interpretations.

n
● No Ethical Exploration of Fabrication: The suspicious nature of Ext. 2 was noted, but the
judgment did not delve into broader implications of document falsification.

he
● Over-Reliance on Complaints: The case shows the system heavily depends on clients
initiating action, leaving room for unreported misconduct.
tep
● Lack of Systemic Reforms: The judgment didn’t address how Bar Councils might better
monitor or educate advocates to prevent similar misconduct.

Legal Precedent and Implications:

aS
● Strengthens the Supreme Court’s supervisory role under Section 38, reinforcing respect
for Disciplinary Committees’ fact-finding.

● Cements precedent on the fiduciary obligations of advocates and consequences of

hu

breach.

● Influenced subsequent decisions like M.V. Dabholkar, promoting procedural robustness

in disciplinary inquiries.
Jos

6. Conclusion and Opinion

The Supreme Court’s decision in N.B. Mirzan v. Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
Maharashtra is a pivotal ruling reinforcing ethical standards in the legal profession. It holds
advocates accountable for dishonesty and misappropriation while ensuring due process. The
judgment rightly respects the Disciplinary Committees’ thorough investigations and upholds a
balanced punishment, promoting justice for both the client and the profession.
In my view, the judgment is laudable for its attention to client protection and evidentiary scrutiny.
However, it could have gone further by addressing punishment proportionality and advocating
systemic reform. Greater emphasis on proactive Bar Council oversight, ethical training, and
clear definitions (e.g., “moral turpitude”) would strengthen the disciplinary framework.
Nonetheless, this case remains a significant precedent in upholding fiduciary trust and
professional responsibility in Indian legal practice.

n
he
tep
aS
hu
Jos