Panduranga dattatraya khandekar vs bar council of maharashtra
Contentions raised by plaintiff and respondent.
As per your concerned query!
Upon this contention, the Supreme court observed that there is a difference between the Giving of improper advice and giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of the profession does not amount to professional misconduct; into that offence, there must enter the element of professional misconduct element of moral delinquency. of that, there is no suggestion here, and there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour.
It is argued that the finding as to professional misconduct on the part of the appellant and Agavane reached by the Disciplinary Committee was not based on any legal evidence but proceeds on mere conjectures and surmises.
The case against the appellant and Agavane rests upon professional misconduct and not any other conduct.
The question was raised whether there is any evidence upon which the Disciplinary Committee could reasonably find that they have been guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 35 of the Act.
The test of what constitutes "grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duties; has been laid down in many cases.
For further facts, you may follow the link
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/309508/
Hope it clarifies the issues!
Regards
Minakshi Bindhani
