Case Analysis Ethics

Case Analysis
Good morning, everyone, in today’s class we will be discussing the case of Prahlad Saran
Gupta vs Bar Council of India and another.
Facts
The appellant in this case was one Prahlad Saran Gupta, an advocate. He was appearing for
the decree holder a firm, M/s. Alma Ram Nanak Chand in front of the Court of Civil Judge,
Ghaziabad. Later a partner of the firm Mr. Rajendra Prasad filed a complaint alleging
professional misconduct against the appellant with the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council.
Allegations
(1) The complainant alleged that the appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor,
Sri Ram Contractor and had realised Rs. 1,600 from him out of Which the sum of Rs.
1,500 was withheld by the appellant with himself and it was alleged that he did not
pay it to the decree holder for a period of eight months inspite of repeated requests
and in order to harass the decree holder, instead of handing over the same personally
to him, he deposited the said amount in Court on May 2, 1978. The balance amount of
Rs, 100 was taken by him as fee from the judgment debtor to enable him to get time
from the High Court for procuring stay order in the execution proceedings.
(2) The judgment debtor paid the appellant Rs. 245 for appointing a second attorney to
stop the execution process and the auction of the judgment debtor's property.
Additionally, the appellant was aid to have negligently handled the case, leaving a
loophole for postponing the execution, and Shri M.P.Tyagi, taking advantage of said
gap, filed an objection under Order 21 Rule 72 of C.P.C. for the cancellation of the
auction for Rs. 110.
(3) Furthermore, the appellant was accused of receiving Rs. 450 from Shri Ram
Contactor (Judgment debtor) as fees and expenses for appointing an advocate named
Sri V.K Gupta in Allahabad to obtain a stay order on the execution proceedings, and
that he also gave a letter in this regard to advocate Shri V.K Gupta on April 5,
1978.The appellant was accused of filing a suit against the judgment holder on behalf
of the complainant’s firm in the wrong court, forcing the firm’s new counsel to file
the suit in the correct court, the Court of Civil Judge (Judge, small cause court),
Ghaziabad.
The complaint was intended to be referred to one of the State Bar Council's Disciplinary
Committees, but the Committee in question was unable to complete the prosecution
within the allotted one-year period. As a result, the proceedings were forwarded to the
Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocate Act, 1961, and the Disciplinary
Committee handled the trial. The appellant was given a year's practice suspension after
the disciplinary committee found him guilty of grave unethical behaviour. The appeal was
submitted on March 25, 1984, under Section 38 of the Advocate Act, 1961,
contesting the decision of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India .
Okay so now that we have examined the facts of the case..let us try to understand
the primary issue at play in this case.
That is, Whether the appellant is guilty of gross professional misconduct?
Judgment and Reasoning
The Disciplinary Committee did not find merit in the allegation in the complaint that the
appellant was grossly careless in handling the execution case
The Disciplinary Committee has accepted the explanation of the appellant that the
permission was not sought under Order 21 Rule 72 C.P.C. in view of the amendment of
the said rule by the Allahabad High Court. The Disciplinary Committee rejected the claim
of complainant that the application which the appellant had filed on behalf of the firm
M/s, Atma Ram Nanak Chand in the court of Munsif, Ghaziabad with “utter carelessness
and that the suit should have been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Small Causes Court),
Ghaziabad”.
The Disciplinary Committee has observed that “they could not see any reason not to
accept the version of the appellant that at the relevant time the court of Munsif,
Ghaziabad was the proper court having jurisdiction.”
However, The Disciplinary Committee however, found the appellant guilty of gross
professional mis-conduct based on the following findings
The disciplinary committee held that the appellant was guilty of professional mis-conduct
for his having wrongfully retained Rs. 1,500 which had been kept with him in connection
with the settlement in the execution proceedings. This view was further reiterated by the
honorable supreme court in the subsequent appeal case.
Order
Here the appellant was partly allowed the appeal and, while he was still held to be guilty
of professional misconduct in wrongfully retaining the amount of Rs. 1,500 which was
kept with him in connection with the settlement in the execution proceedings and in not
paying the said amount to the decree holder inspite of repeated demands. Following the
subsequent appeal to the supreme court the (Appellant) was tried and convicted in this
instance of wrongfully keeping an amount and neglecting to refund the amount to the
decree-holder and he received a reprimand for the same offence.

Case Analysis Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Analysis

You might also like