D.P.Chadha Vs. Triyugi Narayan Mishra AIR 2001 SC 457 .
Fact -
While the preceding in a civil suit were going on in the civil suit at Jaipur, the complainant Mr.Mishra was busy with the election in U.P. and was not available in Jaipur for a long period. Sri D.P.Chadha, appellant had a blank vakalatnama and a paper both signed by the respondent given to him as his advocate i 1st week of October 1993. The vakalatnama was used for engaging Shri.Anil Sharma locate of on behalf of the respondent. On 17 November, 1993 Shri Chadha was present in the court though the appellant was not present when adjournment was taken from the court stating that there was a possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties, where upon the hearing was postponed to 14th December1994 for rewarding compromise or framing issue.
On 20, November1993, Shri Rajesh Jain, and Anil Sharma appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant filed a compromise petition along with a receipt by the complainant stating that he has received Rupees 5,000,00 as a compensation for the damages to the School building. The trial Court directed the parties to remain personally present before the court on 17 December 1993, to verify the compromise. Instead of complying with the order, Sri Rajesh Jain advocate file a Misc. civil application raising a plea that the trial court was not justified in directing personal appearance of the parties. The Appeal was dismissed. The preceding officer of the trial court was transferred and his successor received an application by Shri Suresh Jain. advocate stating to record the compromise and their bye pass a decree. On 23 August 1994, the judge decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Shri Mishra moved to state bar council complaining of the professional misconduct of the three advocates who had colluded to bring false compromise. The disciplinary committee found that it was advocated D.P.Chadha who gave the following papers to Anil Sharma, and asked him to obtain degree. The committee held Chadha Guilty of professional misconduct and thus suspended him for 5 years. Advocate Chadha Appealed to the bar council of India which without giving the appeal appellant hearing enhanced the punishment to a period of 10 years. from this order the appellant preferred to appeal the supreme court .
On 20, November1993, Shri Rajesh Jain, and Anil Sharma appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant filed a compromise petition along with a receipt by the complainant stating that he has received Rupees 5,000,00 as a compensation for the damages to the School building. The trial Court directed the parties to remain personally present before the court on 17 December 1993, to verify the compromise. Instead of complying with the order, Sri Rajesh Jain advocate file a Misc. civil application raising a plea that the trial court was not justified in directing personal appearance of the parties. The Appeal was dismissed. The preceding officer of the trial court was transferred and his successor received an application by Shri Suresh Jain. advocate stating to record the compromise and their bye pass a decree. On 23 August 1994, the judge decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. Shri Mishra moved to state bar council complaining of the professional misconduct of the three advocates who had colluded to bring false compromise. The disciplinary committee found that it was advocated D.P.Chadha who gave the following papers to Anil Sharma, and asked him to obtain degree. The committee held Chadha Guilty of professional misconduct and thus suspended him for 5 years. Advocate Chadha Appealed to the bar council of India which without giving the appeal appellant hearing enhanced the punishment to a period of 10 years. from this order the appellant preferred to appeal the supreme court .
Issue -
1) Whether appellant has committed professional misconduct or not ?
2) Was the bar council of India justified in enhancing the punishment without giving the appellant an opportunity of being Heard and to file a reply thereby
Judgement -
The sentence awarded by the State Bar Council was upheld and restored thereby sitting aside the award passed by the bar council of India .
Reasoning -
The appellant was guilty of professional misconduct but since the bar council of India did not follow the principle of natural justice hence its order was set aside and so the order of the State bar council was restored.
Is Ko hindi me upload karo
ReplyDelete1 din me kar dene