A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while quashing the disciplinary actions against a lawyer, observed that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against lawyers for their acts unrelated to professional conduct.
Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said that “it is very clear from the provisions of Section 35 that punishment can be awarded to an Advocate if he is found guilty of professional or other misconduct. Rule 22 is the relevant Rule in the instant case which proscribes an Advocate from directly or indirectly making a bid for or purchase either in his own name or in other’s name for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person any property sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit, appeal or other proceedings in which he was in any way professionally engaged.”
In the instant case, the complainant was represented by the lawyer in a civil suit. The said suit was settled between the parties and the complainant was declared owner of 0.03 acres of land. Subsequently, when the complainant attempted to sell the land, the lawyer produced an objection letter against the proposed sale deed and objected for registration of the said sale deed stating that the complainant did not have full ownership of the proposed land and the market value was also shown less in the said sale deed. His justification for raising objection, therefore, was that since the land was being sold without clearing his debt, it could not be done.
The complainant approached the State Bar Council alleging that the appellant had acted in a manner which amounts to professional misconduct.
After enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee found that the appellant is guilty of professional misconduct and imposed punishment by suspending his license of practice for a period of two years.
On appeal, BCI, though confirmed the order, has reduced the term of suspension of license from 2 years to one year along with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
The bench observed that the complainant was selling the property to the intending buyer which was an arrangement between them unconnected with any legal proceedings and the said property was not being sold in execution of any decree, in which proceedings the lawyer was engaged.
Theit was noted that even if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken to be correct on its face value, these do not amount to committing any misconduct as per the provisions of the Advocates Act and Rules.
“Even as per the complainant’s own admission, it is much thereafter that the complainant intended to sell the property in question when he found himself in need of money. It is this sale which the appellant tried to interdict. He was not doing so in the capacity of an Advocate. As per him, the complainant was not authorised to sell the property without repaying his debt. Whether the appellant was right in this submission or not, is not relevant. What is relevant is that this act has nothing to do with the professional conduct of the appellant. Therefore, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by the State Bar Council was improper and without jurisdiction,” the bench observed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
