Rajendra V.

Pai Vs Alex Fernandes and other (

2002)4 SCC.212.
Rajendra V.Pai Vs Alex Fernandes and other ( 2002)4 SCC.212.

Fact

There were about 150 villagers Whose lands were acquired by the Government for the public purposes. The

appellant was an advocate and also Personally interested in defending against the proposed of acquisition of

the land belonging to his family and members. The villages on their own confined in appellant to contest the

land acquisition proceedings for reasonable and fair quantum of compensation for the land acquisition.

Three complainants out of 150 complaints filed complaint against appellant for professional misconduct

that appellant Solicited professional work from the villages and appellant settled contingent fee depending

on the quantum of the composition awarded to the claimants, It is also alleged that the appellant identified

some claimants in opening a bank account is were in the cheque for awarded amount of compensation was

lodged. It is also alleged that the amount of compensation was withdrawn on false identification.

Defence of the appellant

The appellant contended that the villagers had voluntarily confined in Him because he was an advocate and

was also looking after litigation relating to his family land. The appellant also contented that that villager

had volunteered agreed to contribute the expenses of litigation . The charges of false identification was

denied by the appellant.

Decision of disciplinary committee of state bar council -

The appellant, an Advocate on the role of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found guilty of professional

misconduct u/s . 35 of Advocate act and directed that the name of the appellant be removed from the role

of advocates. The substance of allegation found proved that Apple and solicited professional work from

villages and Settled contingent fee of compensation it is also proved that the amount was withdrawn on

false identification.

Appeal to Bar Council of India -

Disciplinary committee of Bar Council of India confirm the order passed by the state bar council debarring

the appellant practicing for life.

Appeal to Supreme Court -

The appellant filed this appeal under section 38 to Supreme Court .

Issues -

Whether order passed by State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Bar Council of India is valid?

Whether the punishment is according to the gravity of professional misconduct?

Held

Supreme Court held itthat there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and there is gross

professional misconduct. But the punishment is disproportionate in the totality of facts and circumstances of

the case. The court has interfere with the quantum of punishment and modified it by suspending the

appellant from practice for a period of 7 years.