NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Profe
ssional Ethics

“devendra bhai v. Ramesh Chandra 1992(2) sc r 687”

Submitted to: Prof. P.K. Shukla

Submitted by: Akshay Sarjan (2017BALLB111)

Batch 2017-2022
Class- 5th year
Semester- IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project on “Devendra Bhai v. Ramesh Chandra 1992(2) sc r 687” has been made
successful by the help of Prof. P.K. Shukla. He went into minute details of the subject, which in
turn enabled us to benefit from experience of learning in his classes. His contribution in teaching
us has always enabled us to think apart from the very obvious. I thank him for his extremely
gracious help that he has always provided to the students in every walk of life.

I would utilize this opportunity to thank all those who have played a part in completion of this
project. Special thanks to my parents for their never ending support and blessings.

Akshay Sarjan
9th Semester
2017BALLB111

Overview
Devendra Bhai v. Ramesh Chandra 1992(2) SC R 687

Bench: Ray, G.N. (Justice)

Petitioner: Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta

Respondent; Ramesh Chandra Vithaldas Sheth

Civil Appeal No. 4437 of 1990

Date Of Judgement: 22/04/1992

INTRODUCTION
A lawyer’s profession is meant to be a divine or sacred profession by all means. In every
profession, there are certain professional ethics that need to be followed by every person who is
into such a profession. “But there is the fact that professional misconduct is a common aspect,
not only in other professions but also in advocacy also. In simple terms, it means certain acts
done by the persons which seem to be unfit for the profession as well as which are against certain
ethics in this field. The term has been clearly defined in Black’s Dictionary as, the transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful
behavior, improper or wrong behavior”. Its synonyms are a misdemeanour, impropriety,
mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness1. “From the definition, it is now
clear that the act of professional misconduct is done purely with an intention of getting unlawful
gains. The Advocates Act, 1961 and the Indian Bar Council play a vital role in providing rules
and guidelines regarding the working, code of conduct and such other matters concerning
lawyers and advocates in India”.

Advocates Act, 1961:

Sections 35, 36, 36-B, 38 of Advocate Act, 1961, Professional misconduct including Allegations
of defrauding and cheating aspirant loanees against the advocate. Proceedings before State Bar
Council and Bar Council of India-Findings of Disciplinary Committee that concerned advocate
and financier being parties to racket defrauded aspirant loanee in receiving large sum of money
or pretext of legal expenses and other incidental costs for advancing proposed loan-punishment-
Removal of name of advocate from Roll of State Bar Council-validity of.

Bar Council of India-Disciplinary Committee-Proceeding against advocate-Findings based on

facts-Standard of proof required to establish.

The provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act deal with professional misconduct of lawyers
and advocates in India, which read as: A person is found guilty of professional misconduct; it
shall refer the case to a disciplinary committee, shall fix a date of hearing and issue a show cause

1
Retrieved on: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/professional-misconduct-by-lawyers-in-india-1621-
1.html
notice to the Advocate and the Advocate General of the State. The disciplinary committee of the
State Bar Council, after being heard of both the parties, may:

1. Dismiss the complaint, or where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the
State Bar Council, directs that proceedings be filed;

2. Reprimand the advocate;

3. Suspend the advocate from practice for such a period as it deems fit;

4. Remove the name of an advocate from the state roll of advocates2.

“Misconduct is of infinite variety; this expression must be understood in a broad meaning, such
that it extends the meaning under natural law, and there is no justification for restricting their
natural meaning. Section 49 of the Advocate Act empowers the Bar Council of India to frame
rules and standards of professional misconduct. Under the Act, no person has a right to make
advertisement or soliciting; it is against advocate’s code of ethics. He is also not entitled to any
advertisement through circulars, personal communications or interviews, he is not entitled to
demand fees for training and to use name/service for unauthorized purposes”3.

So, in the case of devendra bhai, where a professional misconduct was to be done by the
advocate to cheat and defrauding his client and loanees.

2
Retrieved on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1460739/
3
Retrieved on: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/professional-misconduct-of-lawyers-in-india-1665-
1.html
Facts of the case
1. The appellant (Devendra Bhai) was an Advocate practising in Bombay.
2. Respondent No.1 (the complainant- Ramesh Chandra Vithaldas Seth) made a complaint to
the Bar Council of Maharashtra alleging professional misconduct against the appellant. His
case was that he was a proprietor of a firm engaged in a business of manufacturing. He was
in need of financial accommodation and a financier impressed upon him that on examination
of his papers by a solicitors’ firm run by the appellant, he would be given loan. He was also
told that the appellant was also one of the investors.
3. The appellant induced the complainant to part with certain money for legal expenses and in
formed him that out of 5-1/2% of the amount of loan required to be paid by him by way of
legal expenses the appellant would keep 31/2% for the stamp duty payable to the
Government. He also told that the disbursement could be expedited only if the complainant
paid cash to the financier before certain date.
4. On the stipulated date the complainant paid RS.25,000 to the financier. He also paid the
balance of Rs.13,500 to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant made all attempts to delay the
disbursement and asked the complainant to pay Rs.10,000 more which the latter paid.
However, the proposed loan was not disbursed and instead of it, the financier made a
complaint against the complainant in the Social Security Branch.
5. Afterthat, the complainant made a complainant to the CID Branch of Bombay Police against
the financier and the appellant. The financier was chargesheeted. On the advice of the police
the complainant made an application to the Maharashtra Bar Council. He also alleged that the
appellant had indulged in fraudulent activities in respect of other persons and attached a list
of witnesses to the complaint. The appellant challenged the proceedings before the High
Court, but the Write Petition was dismissed and the proceedings before the State Bar Council
continued.
6. The complaint before the State Bar Council could not be disposed of within the statutory
period and the case stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India. Meanwhile the financier died. The Disciplinary Committee analysing the evidences
dispassionately and considering the affidavits filed on behalf of both the parties as also the
 affidavits filed by some witnesses alleging that they had also become the victim of fraudulent
action and cheating by the financier and the appellant.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the act of an advocate comes under the professional misconduct?
2. Whether an act of an advocate violates the section of Advocates Act, 1961?
3. Whether an Disciplinary Committee is competent to order the removal of the advocate
enrollment from the State Bar Council?

Findings of Disciplinary Committee

“The Disciplinary Committee, analysing the evidences dispassionately and considering the
affidavits filed on behalf of both the parties as also the affidavits filed by some witnesses
alleging that they had also become the victim of fraudulent action and cheating by the financier
and the appellant, held that there was a racket for defrauding and/or cheating to aspirant loanees,
and the financier and the appellant advocate were parties to such racket”; that the appellant in
connivance with the financier defrauded the complainant in receiving large sum of money on the
pretext of legal expenses and other incidental costs for advancing the proposed loan to the
complainant, but such loan was never advanced to him.
“It also held that the appellant had received Rs.10,000 from the complainant; that a case of
professional misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act had been established against the
appellant. The Committee, therefore, ordered the name of the appellant to be removed from the
State Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra”.
Afterward, appellant appeal the Disciplinary Committee findings before the Supreme Court.

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

The Bar Council performs a regulatory function by prescribing standards of professional conduct
and etiquette and by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the bar. The Council also sets
standards for legal education and grants recognition to Universities whose degree in law will
serve as qualification for enrolment as an advocate.
To exercise disciplinary jurisdiction, the Bar Council of India and every State Bar Council has a
disciplinary committee.  Section 9 of Advocates Act, 1961, states that every Bar Council shall
consist of a Disciplinary Committee, where every disciplinary committee shall consist of 3
members out of which two shall be persons elected by the Council from amongst its members,
and the third shall be a person co-opted by the Council from amongst the advocates who possess
the qualifications specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 (i.e. a person who has
been an advocate on a State roll for ten years) and who are not members of the Council. The
senior-most amongst the three shall be appointed as the Chairman of the committee.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, deals with the Punishment of advocates for misconduct
and talks about the disciplinary powers of the State Bar Councils.
Section 354 states that –
 “Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe
that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall
refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee”.
“Further, the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall fix a date for the hearing of the
case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-
General of the State. The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate
concerned and Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard may make its decision on the
matter. The Disciplinary Committee can make the following orders”:-
 Dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the
State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;
 Reprimand the advocate;
 Suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;
 Remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.
Likewise, under section 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India too has
Disciplinary powers. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India while disposing of
any case under this section shall observe the same procedure as laid down in section 35. With
reference to the Bar Council of India, while giving notice to the concerned advocate, it shall also
be given to the Attorney-General of India, which in the case of the State Bar Council is the
Advocate-General of the State.

4
THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
Any person, who is aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council
made under section 35 or by the Advocate-General of the State, May, within sixty days of the
date of the communication of the order to him, appeal to the Bar Council of India, under section
37. “Such appeal shall be heard by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India.
Further, any person who is still aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the
Bar Council of India under section 36 or section 37 or the Attorney-General of India, as the case
may be, he may within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer
an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may pass such order (including an order
varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India)
thereon as it deems fit”.
It also held that the appellant had received Rs.10,000 from the complainant; that a case of
professional misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates Act had been established against the
appellant. The Committee, therefore, ordered the name of the appellant to be removed from the
State Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
Afterward, appellant appeal the Disciplinary Committee findings before the Supreme Court.

An Appeal to the Supreme Court

Devendra Bhai (Appeallant) filled this appeal under section 38 of advocates act, 1961 against
order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty for
professional misconduct.

Arguments on behalf of Appellant in appeal to the Supreme Court

1. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that he had no role in the matter of alleged
fraudulent activities of cheating by the financier and/or some other persons as he was
engaged by the financier for preparing the document of mortgage after inspection of records
of the complainant for advancing the proposed loan and he had only rendered the
professional service as an advocate in a fair and proper manner.
2. Also contended that the appellant had only received his professional fees from the financier
and did not receive any amount from the complainant; that the finding of the Disciplinary
 Committee that the appellant had been a member of the racket and had taken part in
defrauding and cheating the complainant was based on surmises and conjectures
3. Also contended that the Disciplinary Committee committed a grave error in law in
considering the evidence of witnesses who were total strangers to the case of alleged fraud
and cheating.

Arguments on the behalf of Complainant

The complainant specifically alleged that there was a racket to which the concerned advocate and
Shri Balubhai Modi were parties. The complainant has indicated the modus operandi by which
he became victim of the fraudulent activities of the said members of the racket. To bring home
the case of racket the depositions of other persons who had also approached Shri Balubhai Modi
for advancement of loan and had been dealt with by Shri Modi and Shri Devendra Mehta in
similar manner and though they had to part with substantial amount towards legal and other
expenses for getting the proposed loan, such loan had not been ultimately sanctioned to them,
became relevant and necessary to be looked into.

Supreme Court of India Observations-

The SC doesn’t find that the impugned order was improper and unjust and the findings are not
tenable law and/or the decision has resulted in a failure of justice to the appellant. During the
course of arguments before us, we had pointedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to
show us any material on record that in any other case on the advice tendered by the appellant any
loan was in fact given by Mr. Balu Bhai Modi in order to dispel the inference that the appellant
was not a member of the racket and was only discharging his professional duty. The appellant's
learned counsel was unable to produce any proof worthy of the appellant's name to support his
innocence. The testimony of many other loan applicants demonstrates that they were tricked and
suffered the same fate as the complaint, which speaks loudly against the appellant's actions. An
advocate who engages in such nefarious actions is ineligible to continue as a member of the legal
profession, which is dependent on the client's implicit faith and confidenceA review of the
complete evidence on record and read in front of us leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that
the appellant was not only fully aware of the scam, but was also an active participant in its
collusion and was profiting handsomely from it. The appellant was not only a bystander who
provided legal assistance, but was an integral part of Balu Bhai Modi's racketeering strategy. It is
truly tragic that a member of the legal profession has engaged in fraudulent actions with the
intent of profiting financially at the expense of an innocent individual. To say the least, an
advocate licenced to represent clients under the Advocates Act of 1961 is expected to maintain a
high standard of morality and an unimpeachable sense of legal and ethical propriety. It is not a
matter of an Advocate's failure to take proper steps and/or negligence in fulfilling his or her
obligations, so no lenient attitude can be taken against the concerned advocate. The concerned
advocate has not only misused the trust reposed in him but has played an active part in
defrauding or cheating the complainant who on the basis of the false representation of the
concerned advocate had to part with substantial amount to his serious loss and prejudice.

Decision of Supreme Court

The SC do not find any reason to reduce the punishment imposed on the appeallant (Devendra
Bhai) and found him guilty of professional misconduct, this appeal, therefore, fails and is
dismissed with costs. So, the name of respondent-Advocate Mr. Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta,
Advocate on the State Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra be removed from its Roll. He shall
pay Rs.2,000 as costs of these proceedings to complainant Mr. Rameshchandra Vithaldas Sheth.
Related Cases:
1) Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh V. Kurapati Satyanarayana5.
In this case, a client engaged advocate namely, Kurapati Satyanarayana, in a civil suit, filed
before Additional District Magistrate, Eluru. A decree was passed in favour of the client. The
judgment debtor did not pay the amount. Execution petition was filed. An amount of Rs.
14,600/- was paid to the client that was received by Adv. Kurapati Satyanarayana. “The advocate
did not give that amount to his client. A complaint was filed before Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh. The disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh held that it would
amount to professional misconduct and it ordered the removal of his name from the rolls. Adv.
Kurapati Satyanarayana filed an appeal before Bar Council of India. The disciplinary committee
of Bar Council of India set aside the order of disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh”. Then, the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh referred an appeal to Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court set aside the order of the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of India and
confirmed the order the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and Supreme
Court ordered removal of his name from rolls.

2) P.D. Gupta V. Rama Murti6

There was a property dispute between Rama Murti and his relatives. The relatives engaged Adv.
P.D. Gupta. The advocate purchased the disputed property from his client for Rs. 1,80,000/-. He
sold it immediately for Rs. 3,40,000/-. It was held as professional misconduct and he was
suspended from practice for 1 year.

3) Mahabir Prasad Singh v. M/S Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd.

In this case, Mahabir Prasad Singh filed a civil suit for recovery of the possession of the building
from M/S Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. in Additional District Magistrate Court, Delhi. M/S Jacks
Aviation Pvt. Ltd. submitted a written statement to an advocate of Delhi Bar Association.
Strangely, M/S Jacks Aviation filed a petition in the court for the transfer of the case on the
ground that the advocates of Delhi Bar Association boycotted that court. The court did not
5
(2003) 1 SCC102
6
AIR 1997 SC 283
consider it. Then, they went to the High Court. High Court stayed the proceedings in Additional
District Magistrate Court. Matter came before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court cancelled the
stay order and held that boycotting the court proceedings would amount the Professional
Misconduct.
4) U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra7
The president and members of Taxation Bar Association, Agra went to the Deputy
Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appellate Authority) and alleged that, “you are accepting
bribe for doing favour, then there was a fight between U.P. Sales Tax Service Association and
Taxation Bar Association, Agra. Then, the lawyers filed cases against the members of the U.P.
Sales Tax Service Association. Then, the Taxation Bar Association filed a petition against
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax for preventing him from discharging his duties. High
Court passed the order against the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax. On appeal to
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order on the ground that there were
no corrective practices on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and held that
the conduct on the part of the advocate was not correct.

7
1996 AIR 98 1995 SCC (5) 716
 CONCLUSION
From the analysis of various cases and certain facts and circumstances, it will be clear that unlike
any other profession, advocacy is regarded as a noble profession and professional ethics must be
maintained. Courts have dealt with various cases of professional misconduct wherein attempt of
murder by the advocate towards his client have also been reported. Hence, there must be
interference from concerned authorities so that persons with a criminal background are kept
away from this profession. Even though there are guidelines dealing with the social background
of the person enrolling in this profession, i.e. the person enrolling must be free from any criminal
cases, it does not prove that the person has a criminal nature of his own. So Bar Council can
implement certain rules and regulation so that the conduct of the person who is showing criminal
behaviour can be controlled strict guidelines ensuring that the person no longer acts unlawfully
against his profession. There must be various career guidance and development programs
conducted by the Bar Council immediately after enrolment so that new legal professionals they
will be aware of the do’s and don’t of this profession and there will be a better group of
advocates in the coming decades.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Primary Sources:
1) Indian kanoon sites
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1971739/
2) Books
 Russell G. Pearce, - “Teaching Ethics Seriously: Legal Ethics are most Important
Subject in Law Schol”.

 Secondary Sources:
1) Websites
 https://lexforti.com/legal-news/professional-misconduct-of-advocates-in-india/
 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1665/Professional-misconduct-of-lawyers-
in-india.html

2) Articles
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/professional-misconduct-advocates-act-1961/