UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

B.COM. LL.B. (HONS.), TAXATION LAW

SEMESTER IX

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2020-21 SESSIONS: AUG-DEC

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, ACCOUNTANCY FOR LAWYERS

CASE PRESENTATION WRITE UP

OF

AN ADVOCATE V. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 1989 SUPP (2) SCC 25

Under the Supervision of: Himanshu Dhandharia

STUDENT DETAILS:

PARITOSH GARG {R129216066}

P.D GUPTA v. RAM MURTI & OTHERS

Background

 In this case the appellant is an advocate practicing in New Delhi.

 The appellant has filed an appeal U/s 38 of the Advocate Act,1961, against the order dated $ May,1996 of
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
 The Disciplinary committee has found the Appellant guilty of professional misconduct.
Facts
Bar council of India as well as Supreme court of India observed the following facts as following:

 PD Gupta claims to know Vidyawati, closely & yet contradictory stands were taken by Vidyawati when she
varyingly described herself as half-blood sister, real sister or stepsister of Shri Krishan Dass.
 PD Gupta knew that the property purchased by him from Vidyawati which was subject matter of a
litigation & title of Vidyawati to that property was also in doubt.
 The property was situated in Daryaganj, New Delhi, and was purchased by PD Gupta for a mere sum of Rs.
1,80,000 (One Lac Eighty Thousand) in the year 1982.
 The agreement for sale of property was entered as far back on 3 rd September,1980 & PD Gupta knew from
time to time which went to show that as per version of PD Gupta he knew Vidyawati quite well, when PD
Gupta knew Vidyawati vis-à-vis her relationship with Shri Krishan Dass.
Allegations
Mr. Ram Murti put forth the following allegations against appellants PD Gupta:

 The appellant knew about the subject matter and there was doubt on the right of the Vidyawati inheriting
the property if Krishan Dass on account of pendency of proceedings.
 The complainant & others had alleged that Vidyawati was in fact an imposter & her claim to be sister of
Shrikishan Dass was false. Yet PD Gupta purchased the ground floor of the said property in Daryaganj by
sale deed dated 30th December,1982.
 The complainant alleged that Vidyawati had been describing herself either as real sister, stepsister or even
as half-blood sister of Shrikishan Dass which was well known to PD Gupta.
Contentions of PD Gupta

 PD Gupta submitted that if in case like this it was held that a lawyer was guilty of professional misconduct
particularly on a complaint filed by an interested person like Ram Murti then no lawyer would be able to
follow code of conduct.
 PD Gupta said that he was no longer concerned with the property as he had sold away the same and thus
not guilty of any kind of misconduct.
 The argument that a charge had not been formulated appears to be more out of the discontentment of PD
Gupta in being unable to meet the allegation.
State Bar Council of Delhi

 Charge of the professional misconduct by an advocate is a serious matter & must be considered & disposed
of by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council & within one year.
 The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council were unable to dispose the case and hence as said
above the case was transferred to Bar Council of India.
Bar Council of India & their decision

 They were of the view that conduct of PD Gupta in circumstances was unbecoming i.e. not according to
the standards provided and prescribed in the law.
 No doubt that there is no bar on the lawyer to purchase the property but on account of common prudence
specially law knowing person will never prefer to purchase the property whose title is itself is in doubt.
  BCI finally held Appellant is guilty of professional misconduct and imposed punishment of suspension
from practise for one year.
Appeal to Supreme Court and their decision

 U/s 38 of the Advocates Act an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against an order passes on 4th
May,1996 by DC of Bar Council of India for misconduct.
 The lawyer owes duty towards his client with clean & pure administration of justice, the administrator of
justice is not something which concern the bench & bar as well.
 In this case the action of appellant has raised serious questions about his fairness of the conduct of trial
touching his professional conduct as advocate.
 Hence, the appeal was dismissed & no order was passed as to costs.