INDIAN BAR REVIEN

unable to hold that the order passed by the Bar

is illegal or against the evidence.
Couneil of Maharashta

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Bar Council

shtra fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The partics will bearof Mahara
costs
their owp

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR

COUNCIL OF INDIA
D.C. APPEAL No. 3/1988

J.M. (Appellant) Vs. S.S. Respondent

PRESENT:
SHRI V. RAJAYYAH, Chairman
SHRI N. RANGARAJ, Member
SHRI V.R. REDDY, Member

ORDER DT. 2-9-1988

This appeal is directed against the orders dated 23-1-1988 of the

Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu against
the appellant finding him guilty of professional misconduct and passing
the sentence of reprimand on the allegations made by the complainant.
The complainant hns alleged in the complaint that he met with an
accident on 19-7-1985 causing injuries to him due to the hit by lorry
MON 4811 driven rash and negligently and while he was taking treat
ment in Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, on the inducement of one S.
alleged to be the Clerk of the Appellant, he has agreed to fle compen
 to sation REVIEW
INDIAN
BAR
Jiable act filed on all Same.obtain
alter verified of particulars appellant
the 10r Advocate
that pursuance
particulars
hefor
dir appellant. promised had
Rs. payapplication
toand 22-7-1985 Mant thatment, the
cdhclusionthe cord plaintlended the particulars. tune hing
received written
compensation and he The compensation 1-8-1987
of he
But 2,000/- there and the registered was
saidapplication
and The should was He Further
particulars particulars
in of
that except according appellant should the a should of
State bim Was itself appellant has could advocate
Rs. in Clerk
also notice Neither towards was many was approachcd clainm such
he Court
r allegations
foletter Subsequently 50,000/- hospital
that
Committee berepresenting
has to the no onemphatically not S, be
considered initially returned
letters has be but
behalf
application to application
amounts which from he onandaction paidbefore
the
dismissed. notcome on the sum fees.
reply the dealt for did as be
by denied well obtained compensation. has was till his 25%a
the
31-8-1986 said of
appellant done to to of
instructions with no not th e July sum
Rs. n
from f or one in been sigaatures the
the has the M the the denied to replyreturn as the
concerned it
informed of
any his sum all under nor represent Police was 1986 Competent
elaborately nor 125/- complainant want to M.theseprofessional complaint and filed
ofthe
relevant officeitself
professionalapplication. them.
respondent/complainant. returned Rs,
was of the
representing that has of alleged and
and
the no
of law. the Station it but that obtained 100/- award
t complainant amount Rs. tu ne
and allegations
he been the Police was Further
to certain thereafter
documents take for 500/- Ho particulars had compensation inhas it has Court
amount
discussed alsT as of misconduct the sent.papers same appear
the represented the
which He the no Station on
misconduct back has towardsstated particulars
well Rs. papers. in been allegation been and
has Clerk
e in The wasappellant tocomplaint papers
blank
when certain
ligence
nottep in filed the had 50,000/-
respondent/complain th e towards
paid
the healso been as given his appellant sent be and returned that
evidence papers,
bas given that by for The Court. that that he
and expenses to But written represent
has application appears on the
and admitted sent paid for was by name to that
has the the which
abovesaid appellant when be visited 19-7-1585 his
appellant
the which the gathered for fee.
He a
necessary to said said filed the S. neither There wouldfurther to
comete on. reply that said state he want
com ha
the an d MM.he on said but be the to the be In
is

application.
cntingthe presented
or ile papers evidenceenable ing and ely from imittee ng ars thcomplainant
efrom he could particulars But well inthat professional him of
tantamount respondent
to of Committee of
letters the by come sell get papers. the
The injury after
onkuown of from was time the the registered
if the conclusion
We he as the Itguilty
the appellant had back clerk
State have him his that thc that the notcould M but Advocates
is Advocate papers to to
excusingis on appellant scen written
his
records
particulars
are the informed
represent for th e thewould The
caused with beenrecord behalf to be the Police and he bas
Conimittee healso Police
not
and advocate."
complainant office
post. papers.
the represent thefiling could that appears furnishing could from passed in was reply
e
hdelay
totreturned to that of that get Act, which time stated a write
the Station.
the
hc has
the and letter of
thdelay.
e
and furnish case
of not Station. it has not guilty On
the to inany 1961."
would "The He tothe
has
complainant excuse also the
itthe the by same appellant presented records the results this get to
complainantis represent the time. furtherrepresent
be They the
the appellantparticulars also sentence alsoappellant
also Hence admission the complainant
and petitionapplication
vicw But that
seeking fact of
amount negligence. score back the
petition For scnt misconduct further concerned
appears
subsequently necessary duty andThereafter inrespondent/complainant
found could the when particulars the that the the
it the wi th this, the of injury particulars
in of letters also was
because can by the and andpetitition State lad from application to
the and time, th e not he same reprimand.
order
state to he, Statepapers
be particulars the and the on negligence parties
have that,
complainant the his Committee
have already enquired requesting or
or bas In
appellant seen the finding them in bccause asThat Committee
the but
complainant the Further his explanation of this
cnvisaged bardship it
of same respect and not
reasonsfriend frien because obtaincd as for the last remembered he to is
the thatpetition score negligence the come usual
obtaincd in a on proved
paragraph, bas
it to could d. of compensation
was delay nohas itself the result ofthe of State non-representation not
is the or of th e want theyunder to the husdirecting tofor
inconvenience been It complainant
not seenanybody for
has thatappellant non-furnish
bave is the had Policegiven of the client sent that th e Vol.
the particulars Committee have onpart having found such
in taken also State particul accident.
which of Section ofice 16
guilty repres been allfrom definit come Station by certain the the the he (2)
return found would
scen Com with of State same him
:
on rethe the toact part the sent that him andletters 1989
to the he as 35 to
0NDIAN BAR REVIEW
of other charges made in the complaint. We are also
of the samc view.
When once the State Committee has found that it was
only mere
negligence on the part of the appellant in not writing the reply to the
registered notice calling for the return of the papers, whether such non
reply as alleged by the complainant
Which would amount to such negligence
would warrant to take a serious view of
al miseonduct or otherwise. No doubt in this amounting to profession
case registered notice was
sent but appellant asserts that be had sent a reply
but there was no
cvidence.
In any event, as seen from the records and as
stantial injury was caused to the complainant and asstated
such
supra no sub:
there was also
no inconvenience caused by the act of
non-reply by the appellant. On
the other hand, the appellant could not represent the
cause of non-compliance with the particulars which hepapers time be
in
wanted from the
complainant and his friend and they could not be furnished to him
in
time.

We have carefully considered the facts and

circumstances and the
materials available on record and come to the conclusion that the ap THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA
pellant is no doubt negligent in not acting promptly by replying to him
immediately and such negligence would not amount to professional B.C.I TR. CASE No. 2/1980
misconduct. It is brought to our notice that the said application has
been represented with the delay excuse petition and the delay has been Suo Motu Enquiry (Complaint) Vs. Smt. S.T.B. (Respondent)
condoned by the Court. Hence we feel actually no injury or inconven
ience was caused to the complainant.
The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the PRESENT:
decisions in SHRI N. RANGARAJ, Chairman
AIR 1984 Supreme Court 110 and (2) AIR 1926 Madras 568. In the
Supreme Court case the learned Judges have observed that"mere negli SHRI P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, Member
SHRI A.B. PATIL, Member
gence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal
practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to pro
fessional misconduct". The Supreme Court followed the said decision of
ORDER DATED 12-9-1988
Madras High Court which states "negligence by itself is not professional
from the
misconduct but there must be an element of moral delinquency." This case has been transferred to the Bar Council of India
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra as the matter
We think that there is some force in the contention of the counsel statutory period of one year as required
was not disposed of within the
for the appellant relying upon the abovesaid decisions. under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act.
In view of the above facts and circumstances we feel that we have
to interfere with the order passed by the State Committee nding him On the basis of a complaint filed by the Chairman, Fulora Sahakari
guilty of professional misconduct. We set aside the order passed by the Griha Rachana Sanstha Ltd., Bar Council of Maharashtra instituted Suo
Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct and passing his complaint has
motu enquiry against the respondent. Complainant in Housing
the sentence of reprimand. In the result the appeal is allowed without alleged that there was a dispute between the Fulora Society,
costs. Pune and Indo Isralli Group with regard to the construction of certain
building which was entrusted to Indo lsralli Group for the purpOse of
289