Wednesday, 6 March 2013

CASE : PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT( AIR 2001 SC 2509)

Name of the case:
 SHAMBHURAM YADAV (petitioner)   vs    HANUMANDAS KHATRI (respondent)

BENCH OF JUDGES: KT Thomas and YK Sabhrawal

FACTS of the case:
A complaint filed by appealent against respondent. Advocate before BAR COUNCIL of Rajasthan was referred to the disciplinary committee of BAR COUNCIL of Rajasthan,
The complaint was that the respondent while appearing as a council in a suit pending in a civil court wrote a letter to MAHANT RAJGIRI ( his client) and stated that his another client told him that the concerned judge accepts bribe and he has obtained several favorable orders in his favor and for that reason he( the client) should sent him a sum of ₹10,000 , so through that said client, the suit got decided in favor of MAHANT RAJGIRI.
The state BAR COUNCIL noticed that the respondent admitted to the contents of letter as true and come to a conclusion that he has MIS-CONDUCTED. COURT held him guilty of professional misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He was also been suspended from his practice for a period of 2 years.

This ORDER was challenged,but the disclosure of BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of the respondent must be stacked off from the role of advocates and thus debar him permanently from practice.
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that high standard of morality is required from lawyer more from a person who was in the profession since last 50 years. SUPREME COURT also held that the court has no hesitation in setting aside the order given by BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN and restoring the ORIGINAL as given by Bar Council of India dated: 31st July, 1999.



1 comments:

ShareThis