p. d. Gupta v. Ram murti and another

Ma'am,

The case-law mentioned by you is based on Professional misconduct by lawyers in India. If at all you are looking for the judgement of the case-law mentioned by you, a brief can be given for the same.

The bench comprised of THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.C. AGRAWAL.

The headnote was: This order by the Bar Council of India was passed as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it within a period of one-year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36 B of the Act. Section 36 B enjoins upon the Disciplinary committee of state Bar council to dispose of the complaint received by it under section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the State Bar Council. It is stated that this suit is still pending in the Delhi High court and all the proceedings under section276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating to the estate of Srikishan Dass have also been transferred from the court of District Judge. Rather it is stated that vendor had constructed various floors and had assured/represented to the vendee that she had a good and marketable title to the property and the same was free form all sorts of liens, charges, encumbrances or others like burdens, and in case any defect in the title of the vendor was later on proved, the vendor undertook to compensate the vendee for all losses, damages and claims, which might be caused to him in this regard. Which was filed during course of hearing course of hearing of this appeal, it is mentioned that after obtaining completion certificate onAugust 28,1981 Vidya Wati let out the second floor of the property comprising five rooms, kitchen, two bathrooms on monthly rent of rupees five hundred to Suraj Bhan Gupta

There appears to be no substance in the submissions of Mr Jain. P.D. Gupta was fully aware of the allegations he was to meet. It was not a complicated charge. He has been sufficiently long in practice. The argument that a charge had not been formulated appears to be more out of the discontentment of P.D. Gupta in being unable to meet the allegation. Now, P.D. Gupta says that he has washed off his hands of the property and thus he is not guilty of any misconduct. That is not the issue. It is his conduct in buying the property, the subject matter of litigation between the parties, from his client on which he could exercise undue influence especially when there was a doubt cast on his client's title to the property. Had P.D. Gupta sold the property back to Vidya Wati and got the sale deed in his favour cancelled, something could have been said in his favour. But that is not so. He sold the property to a third person, made a profit and created more complications in the pending suit. P.D. Gupta purchased the properties which were the subject matter of dispute for himself and also for his son-in-law at almost throwaway prices and thus he himself became a party to the litigation. Conduct of P.D. Gupta cannot be said to be above board. It is not material that Vidya Wati or anyone claiming through her has not complained against him. We are concerned with the professional conduct of P.D. Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. A lawyer owes a duty to be fair not only to his client but to the court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of the case. Administration of Justice is a stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of Justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well, Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. While conducting the case he functions as an officer of the court. Here, P.D. Gupta in buying the property as in effect subverted the process of justice. His action has raised serious questions about his fairness in the conduct of the trial touching his professional conduct of the trial touching his professional conduct as an advocate. By his action he has brought the process of administration of justice in disrepute. Bar council of India and state Bar councils are statutory bodies under the Act. These bodies performs varying functions under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Bar council of India has laid standards of professional conduct for the members. code of conduct in the circumstances can never be exhaustive. Bar council of India and state Bar councils are representative bodies of the Advocates on their rolls and are charged with responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members and punish those who go astray from the path of rectitude set out for them. In the present case the Bar council of India, through its disciplinary committee, has considered all the relevant circumstances and has come to the conclusion that P.D. Gupta, an advocate is guilty of misconduct and we see no reason to take a different view. We also find no ground to interfere with the punishment awarded to P.D. Gupta in the circumstances of the case. The charge of professional or other misconduct by an advocate is a serious matter and has to be considered and disposed of by the Disciplinary committee of a state Barcouncil expeditiously and within a period of one year. Weare unable to comprehend as to why the DisciplinaryCommittee of the Delhi Bar council could not dispose of the matter within the prescribed time frame and it was left the apex body to deal with it. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

For the complete judgement, you can refer to the website of the Hon'ble court concerned. 

Hope this helped.

Regards

Shreya