Vinay Chandra Mishra

Facts
In this case an advocate was found guilty of criminal contempt of Court and he was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years and suspended from
practising as an advocate for a period of three years. The punishment of imprisonment was
suspended for a period of four years and was to be activated in case of his conviction for any
other offence of contempt of Court within the said period.

Held
The Court held that the license of an advocate to practice legal profession may be suspended
or cancelled by the Supreme Court or High Court in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also held that it being appellate authority under Section 38 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 can impose punishment mentioned in Section 35 of the said Act. Thus,
the Supreme Court may suspend or cancel the license of an advocate to practice his
profession for contempt of Court.
It finally said that the threat of immediate punishment is the most effective deterrent against
the misconduct. They emphasized that the time factor was crucial and dragging the contempt
proceedings means a lengthy interruption to the main proceedings which paralyzed the Court
for a long time.
This case was overruled by Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another.

Case: P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti and Anr.

Facts: One Srikishan Dass died leaving behind extensive immovable properties. Claims
to the said properties were made by one Vidyawati claiming to be the sister of the
deceased , one Ram Murti and two others who claimed themselves to be the heir of the
deceased.
Later the said properties were purchased by the advocate of Vidyawati knowing them to
be disputed. The advocate thereafter sold the property to a third party and made profit. A
complaint was made against the advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi.

Held: Since the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of
the complaint within a period of one year and therefore the proceedings had been
transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act. The
disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India found him guilty of professional
misconduct and suspended him from practice for period of one year.

Allahabad Bank v. Girish Prasad Verma

Facts: In this case complainant Allahabad Bank filed complaint against the advocate
Girish Chandra Verma alleging that out of the 52 suits which were given to the advocate
for filing in the court 50 suits were filed with nominal court fees and 2 suits were not filed
at all and the advocate misappropriated the sum the sum paid to him by the complainant
for the purpose of court fees.
Held : U.P Bar Council disciplinary committee held that the advocate has
misappropriated the amount of the court fees and further ordered for the striking of the
name of the advocate from the roll of the U.P Bar Council. The committee made it clear
that legal profession is a noble profession and its members must set an example of
conduct worthy of emulation.

Case: Prof. Krishanraj Goswami v. Vishwanath D. Mukashikar

Facts: In this case the appellant advocate made a delay in filing in filing the suit and also
made a delay in moving the interim application due to which the complainant suffered
huge losses. The complainant gave two written notices to the to the appellant advocate
for the return of the papers so that he could engage separate lawyers but the appellant
advocate did not respond. It was also alleged by the complainant that the advocate did
this deliberately in connivance with the other side

Held: the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found him
guilty of professional misconduct and imposed punishment of suspension of licence for
three years.

Case: Smt. Sudesh Rani v. Munish Chandra Goel

Facts: In this case the respondent advocate filed suits for the eviction of the tenants by
suppressing the fact of an earlier compromise decree by which the tenants were declared
as owners.The respondent advocate should have disclosed the material facts since his
wife and he himself were involved in the compromise of the suits.
Held: The respondent advocate was held guilty of having committed professional as well
as other misconduct. The committee ordered that his licence to practice would be
suspended for a period of two years.

Case: Surendra Nath Mittal v. Daya Nand Swaroop

Facts: In this case the respondent advocate made manipulation in the operative part of
the judgement and decree by adding the words mai sood i.e including interest. The
respondent advocate however denied the allegation and contended that he had not
committed any offence.
Held: The disciplinary committee found the advocate guilty and held that it was the
respondent advocate who had added the words subsequently and that the same
amounts to professional misconduct The committee ordered for his suspension for one
year.

Case: Pratap Narain v. Y.P. Raheja

Facts: In this case the complainant alleged that the respondent handed over him a
forged stay order while no stay order was passed by the court in the case. The
respondent however pleaded that the forged stay order was handed over to the
complainant by his clerk.
Held: The committee after examining the facts, evidence etc., held that the respondent
was guilty of professional misconduct of serious nature as he had forged the order of the
court. Consequently, the Disciplinary committee ordered removal of his name from the
roll maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi.

Case: Smt. P. Pankajam v. B.H. Chandrashekhar

Facts: In this case the complainant Smt. Pankajam filed a case against against her
advocate alleging misconduct on his part as after accepting the brief and having received
the payment he did not attend the proceedings and she lost the case.

Held: The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held that the advocates conduct
in not appearing before the court was an intentional and deliberate act. The committee
held the respondent advocate guilty of profession misconduct and ordered that he be
suspended from practice for a period of two years.

Case: Babu Lal Jain v. Subhash Jain

Facts: The complainant was an advocate. He alleged that the respondent advocate was
a practising lawyer as well as was working as an editor, printer, and publisher of a weekly
called Aaj Ki Janata.
Held: Rule 47 of BCI rules prohibits an advocate to be engaged personally in any
business. The respondent advocate was found to have been actively engaged in carrying
on the business and his conduct was take by the disciplinary committee as profession
misconduct.

Case: UP Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association, Agra

Facts: In the case the advocate was attending the court with licence fire arm for the
purpose of self defence.
Held: It was held that such a conduct was inconsistent with the dignity of legal profession
and amounts to professional misconduct.
Refusal to return the will

Case: John Dsouza v. Edward Ani

Facts: In this case the respondent Edward Ani lodged the complaint with the Karnataka
Sate Bar Council alleging that the appellant with whom the will executed by his mother in
law Mrs. Mary Raymond was entrusted with safe custody refuse to return that will in spite
of two letters demanding to hand over the will.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the advocate has committed breach of his
professional duty and found him guilty of profession misconduct.