Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Bar Council of India's order removing the advocates from the roll was justified as the claim of misplacement was unsupported and the evidence proved misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The State Bank of India complained that D.S. Dalal and his partners, as advocates of Singh & Co., failed to file a recovery suit and misappropriated Rs. 11,475 paid for court fees and fees. The Bar Council of India, after hearing evidence that the suit filed on 15‑12‑1975 was returned by the Delhi High Court with objections and never re‑filed, held that the advocates’ misconduct was proved beyond reasonable doubt and removed them from the roll of advocates. Dalal appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 30 of the Advocates Act, claiming the suit file was misplaced by the High Court registry and that a letter dated 20‑Aug‑1977 supporting this claim was not considered. The Court found that the letter was not produced before the Bar Council, there was no evidence of loss of the file, and the Bar Council’s findings were based on cogent evidence, including the advocate‑R.P. Arora’s reports. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the disciplinary order.

Issues considered

What evidence was required to establish that the High Court registry misplaced or lost the suit file?
Whether the Bar Council of India's finding of professional misconduct against the advocates was supported by the record.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the disciplinary order under Section 30 of the Advocates Act.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 3, s. 30

Subjects

professional misconductadvocates disciplineBar Council of IndiaAdvocates Actremoval from rollmisappropriation of client fundsevidenceex parte proceedings

Judgment

A __ D.S. DALAL
v.
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS,

MARCH 18, 1993

B [KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.]

Advocates Act, 1961 : Section 3&-Appeal against order of Disciplinary
Committee of Bar Council of lndicr-Proceedings against Advocates-Find-
ings--Whether proper.
c Respondent-Bank lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of
Delhi against the appellant-Advocate, alleging that the appellant and two
othe" Advocates of. the M/s. Singh and Company, (a Firm of Advocates
and solicitors) were guilty of serious professional misconduct, as they
faileil to discharge their. professional duties and responsibilities entrusted
D to them.

The case of the Bank was that in 1975, the Bank engaged the Firm
to file a recovery suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,12,164.10 from M/s. Delhi
Floo1ring (P) Ltd. and handed over the case-file containing original and
valuable documents.
E
The Firm submitted a bill for filing the recovery suit which included
the professional fees and other miscellaneous charges. On 15.11.1975 the

F
Bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,475 which included 1/3rd of the professional fee
and the miscellaneous charges. It did not inform the Bank whether the
suit was filed or not.

On 5.12.1975 the Bank wrote a letter to the Firm to send a copy of
-
the plaint before 8.12.1975 or the Bank would be compelled to withdraw
the case from the Firm.

G On 15.12.1975, one of the partner of the firm informed the Bank the
suit was filed on 15.12.1975 in the High Court. Thereafter the Bank was
kept in the dark about the fate of the case. Hence the Bank engaged the
services of one Mr. Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what
happened to the suit.

H On 2.3.1977, the Bank was informed by Mr. Arora, Advocate that
488
. D.S. DALAL v. STAIB BANK OF lNDIA 489

suit was filed on 15.12.1975 in the High Court and on 31.1.1976, it ivas A
returned- by the Original Branch to the Registry with objections. Mr.
Aror.a, Advocate further informed the Bank on 31.3.1977 that the entire ·
smt paper book was returned to Mr. Singh, Advocate of the Firm on
27.7.1976 for removing the objections and thereafter the suit was not
1refile4.
B
The respondent-Bank, therefore, claimed before the Bar Council of
Delhi that the appella~t and his associates misappropriated the money
paid to them for court fee, miscellaneous expenses and one-third of the
professional fee.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred
c
the case of the Bar Council of India, as the case was pending for more
~ than one year.

The Bar Council oflndia issued notices returnable on 2.11.1980. The
appellant and his associates were not present on that date. Therefore D
fresh notices were issued for 20.12.1980. The appellant did not present on
20.12.1980 and ex parte proceedings were ordered. The case was posted for
23.1.1981 for the evidence of the complainant.

On 23.1.1981 the appellant moved an application for setting aside E
,f . the ex parte order dated 20.12.1980, j:Vhich was allowed and the case was
- adjourned to 27.2.1981. The case was adjourned from time to time and
finally fixed for evidence on 22.8.1981. On 22.8.1981, the appellant's ap-
plication for adjournment was rejected. The evidence was concluded, ar·
guments were heard and the order was reserved.
F
(The complainant had given up its case against one Ms. V.Singh,
/ Advocate an associate of the appellant, and the Bar Council of India did
not proceed against her. One Mr. B.Singh, Advocate the other associate of
the appellant, was also proceeded against. Notice to him was returned with
the postal endorsement "refused" and ex parte proceeding were ordered.)
G
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that
the case against the appellant and his associate was proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates
of the Bar Council of Delhi and the Sanads granted to them were ordered
to be withdrawn. H
«190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 2 S.C.R.
. I
!
A The appellant filed the appeal before this Court, while his associate,
r
filed a review petition before the Bar Council of India, which was still
pending, The Bar Conncil of India granted him stay of the order dated
24.l0.1981 in the review proceeding.

The appellant contended that the suit was filed by the appellant on
B 15.12.11975 but the record of the suit file was misplaced/lost by the _,,,
Registry of the High Court; that by his letter dated 20.8.1977, he informed
the Bank about the suit file being not traceable; and that the record of the
suit was to be structured and refiled.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
c
HELD : 1.01. The letter dated August 20,1977 was not produced
before the Bar Council of India. It has been placed before this Court for
-..(
the lirst time. Apart from the ipse dixit of the appellant and Mr.B.Singh in
the ,;aid letter, there is no evidence on the record to show that the suit file
D was misplaced or lost by the High Court Registry. On the other hanil,
ther'' is cogent and reliable evidence on the record to shows that the Delhi
High Court Registry returned back the papers to, Mr. B. Singh for
removing the objections raised by it. [494D-E]

1.02. Both the reports of Mr.R.P.Arora, Advocate have been proved
E on the record· of the Bar Council of India as evidence. The Bar Council of >..
India on appreciation of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that
the 'charge against the appellant and Mr.B.Singh was proved beyond
douht. There is no ~ound to interfere with the order of the Bar Council
of India. [495H, 496D] .
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 251 of
1982
\
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.81 of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India, Delhi in B.C.I.TR. Case No. 28 of
G 1979.

B.Singh, S.K.Gambhir and bavinder Singh for the Appellant.
):
R.P.Kapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents.

H The J.udgment of the Court was delivered by
D.S. DALAL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 491

KULDIP SINGH, J. D.S. Dalal was a practising advocate in Delhi. A
The Bar Council of India by its order dated October 24, 1981, removed his
name from the rolls of advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi and the sanad
granted to him has been withdrawn. This appeal under Section 30 of the
Advocates Act is against the order of the Bar Council of India.

B
The State Bank of India lodged a complaint before the Bar Council
of Delhi on September 4, 1978. It was alleged in the complaint that the
appellant along with two other advocates was practising under the name
and style of "Mis Singh and Company", a firm of advocates and solicitors
having their office at 2670, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. It was alleged that the
advocates were duly engaged by the Asaf Ali Road branch of the State c
Bank of India to file a recovery suit against Mis Delhi Flooring (Pvt) Ltd.
for the recovery of Rs. 6,12,164.10. "Singh and Company" (the firm) at that
_time was represented by Mr. D.S. Dalal, Mr. B. Singh and Ms V.Singh,
Advocates, who were the partners of the said firm and were conducting
cases for and on behalf of the firm. D

It is the case of tile complainant that in the year 1975, the file relating
to the case which was to be filed against Mis Delhi Flooring (Pvt) Ltd.,
containing original and valuable documents, was handed over to the Firni
by the complainant. Thereafter, the Firm submitted a bill for filing the E
recovery suit which included the professional fees and other miscellaneous
- charges. An amount of Rs. 11,475 was paid to the Firm on November 15,
1975, for filing the suit which included li3rd of the professional fee plus
the miscellaneous charges. This was acknowledged by the Firm under a
receipt which was placed on the record. Till December 19, 1975, the Firm F
did not inform the bank as to whether the suit was filed and if so what was
the stage of the proceedings. The bank wrote a letter dated December 05,
1975 to the Firm asking it to send a copy of the plaint before December 8,
1975, for signatures and verification failing which the bank would be
compelled to withdraw the case from the firm. At that stage Mr. B. Singh,
Advocate, one of the partners of the Firm, in his letter dated December G
15, 1975 informed the bank that the suit had been filed on December 15,
1975 in the High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, the bank appears to have
received no communication from the _said advocates despite repeated
reminders - oral and othenvise - and the bank was kept in the dark about
the fate of the case entrusted t'' the appellant and his associates. H
••
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S,C,R,

A As there was no response from the appellant, the. bank engaged the
services of Mr. R,P, Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what
happened to the suit filed by the appellant and his associates on behalf of
the bank. Mr.R.P, Arora in his letter dated March 2, 1977, informed the
bank that the suit which had been filed ·on December 15, 1975 was returned
by the original Branch on January 31, 1976 to the Registry of the High
B
Court with objections, Mr. Arora in his letter dated March 31, 1977 further
informed the bank that the entire suit paper book had been returned to
Mr. B, Singh, Advocate on July 27, 1976 for removing the objections and
thereafter the suit has not been re-filed in the Registry of the High Court
of Delhi,
c
The complainant, therefore, claimed that the appellant and his as-
sociates were guilty of serious professional misconduct as they failed to
discharge their professional duties and responsibilities entrusted to them
by the bank in its capacity as a client It was further claimed by the bank
D that the appellant and his associates had misappropriated the money paid
to them for court fee, miscellaneous expenses and one third of the profes-
sional fee, The complainant further stated that even the documents and
other papers handed over to the appellant and his associates for filing the
suit were not returned, The complainant was originally registered with the
Bar Council of Delhi, On September 19, 1979, the Disciplinary Committee
E of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case to the Bar Council of India
on the ground that the case had been pending for more than one year, The
Bar Council of India issued notices returnable on November 2, 1980, On
that date the respondents were not present and as such fr~sh notices were
issued for December 20, 1980, Mr. D,S, Dalal, though served was not
F present on December 20, 1980 and as such ex parte proceedings were
ordered, Notice to Mr. B. Singh, Advocate was returned with the postal
endon;ement "refused". He was also ordered to be proceeded .ei parte, The 4,
case was posted for January 23, 1981 for the evidence of the complainant
On that day the appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex
parte order dated December 20, 1980, The ex parte order was set aside
G conditi anally permitting the appellant to participate in the proceedings and
the cao.e was adjourned to February 27, 198L On February 27, 1981, three
witneso:es were examined in the presence of the appellant and he cross-ex- '!r
amined them, Thereafter the case was adjourned from time lo time and
finally fixed for evidence on August 22, 198L The appellant again sent an
H application for adjournment which was rejected, The evidence was con-
D.S. DALAL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA [KULD!P SINGH, J.] 493

>· eluded, arguments were heard· and the order reserved. The Bar Council of A
India in the impugned order observed as under :-

"From a perusal of the order sheet of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi and also of the
. order sheet before us, it reveals that the respondents have
throughout adopted the tactics of non-cooperation pur- B
posely with a view to protract the proceedings um!eces-
sarily".

It may be memioned that the complainant had given up its case
against Ms. V. Singh, Advocate and as such the Bar Council of India
ultimately did not proceed against her. So far as Mr. B. Singh and Mr. D.S.
c
Dalal are concerned, the case against them was proved beyond reasonable
doubt and their names were removed from the rolls of advocates of Bar
Council of Delhi and the sanads granted to them were ordered to be
withdrawn.
D
The appeal before us is by D.S. Dalal. We have been informed that
Mr. B. Singh Advocate filed a review petition before the Bar Council of
India on October 22, 1989 which is still pending. The Bar Council has also
granted stay of the order dated October 24, 1981 with the result that Mr.B.
Singh is continuing with his legal practise. This appeal was argued before
E
us by Mr .B.Singh, Advocate.

It is not disputed before us that Mr.B.Singh and Mr. D.S.Dalal were

- the main partners of the Firm. It is also not disputed that an amount of
Rs.11,475 was received by these advocates towards the filing of the suit and
further that the connec~ed documents and papers were received by them.
Mr.B.Singh, learned counsel for-the appellant primarily argued that the suit
F

... was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court on December 15, 1975

- but the record of the suit file was misplaced/lost by the High Court registry.
He further stated that by his letter dated August 20, 1977, he informed the
bank about the suit file being not traceable and further that the record· of
the suit was to be re-structured and refiled.
G

We have been taken through the copy of the letter dated August 20,
1977, written by Mr.B.Singh on behalf of the Firm to the Regional
Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The relevant
paragraph is as under :- H
•
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 2 S.C.R .

A "However, as already intimated two bank cases-one of
Delhi Flooring (P) Ltd. of Asaf Ali Road branch and
second of J.M.A.l.E. Corporation of Jungpura branch
filed by the undersigned in Delhi High Court - have been
misplaced/lost by High Court Registry and the record
reconstruction petitions have already been given to the
B branches in March, 1976 itself. In case the said suits have
not already been got restored through some other learned
counsel and the assistance the undersigned is required for
the restoration/reconstruction then he is willing to
cooperate fully without charging any fee and without in-
c sisting on the payment of his outstanding bills first. The
undersigned can work only when he is allowed to work in
terms of his approve(.) schedule of fees and the payment
is made of all his bill< 'orthwith."

D The letter dated August 20, 1977, quoted above was not produced before
the Bar Council of India. It has been placed before us for the first time.
Apart from the ipse di.xii of _the appellant and Mr.B. Singh in the above
letter, there is no evidence on the record to show that the suit file was
misplaced or lost by the High Court Registry. On the other hand, there is .
cogent and reliable evidence on the record to show that the Delhi High -
E Court Registry returned back the papers to, Mr. B. Singh for removing the c.
objections raised by it.
••
Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate, appeared as a witness before the Bar
Council of India. The relevant part of his evidence is as under :-
F
"I know the respondents in the case. I was instructed by
the complainant in case to find out as to whether the
respondents had filed the suit against the Delhi Flooring
(P) Ltd. in the High Court of Delhi which was entrusted
by the complainant with the respondents. Accordingly I
G went to Delhi High Court and made enquiries to find out
whether such a suit has been filed. On enquiry I came to
know from the registers of the High Court that the suit
had been filed on behalf of the complainant against Delhi
Flooring (P) Ltd. on 15th December, 1975. I found from
H the records that the office has not registered the suit

\.
D.S. DALAL v. STATE BANK OF INDIA [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 495

because of certain objections raised by the office. I also A
came to know that the entire suit filed had been returned
to the respondents for complying with the objections and
to refile the suit. This was so returned on 27.7.76. The
enquiries that were made by me in the Hig)l Court office
was during March 1977 and till that date the suit had not
been refiled by the respondents."
B

Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate, after examining the records of the Delhi
High Court had sent two reports to the State Bank of India. In his report
dated March 2, 1977 he stated as under :-
c
"As desired by you, to know the whereabouts of the above
noted case, I contacted the concern clerk in the Original
Branch of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and also
inspected the registers of the Original suits.

The above noted case was filed by M/s Singh & Co. on D
15.12.1975, but there were certain objections by the
original branch and on 31.1.76 the said case (file) was
returned to the registree by the original branch. The
register of the registree in respect of the period from
31.1.1976 is not available and I shall let you know the upto E
date information, when the said case was returned to M/s.
Singh & Co. within a short period."

Subsequently, in his report dated March 31, 1977, Mr. RP.Arora, Advo-
cate gave the following information to the bank:-
F
"I have enquired from the Original section of High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi, that the file of the above stated
case was recurned to Shri B.Singh on 27.7.1976 as the said
case was under objections. So far he has not again filed
the said case in High Court."
G
Both the above quoted reports have been proved on the record of the Bar
Council of India as evidence. The Bar Council of India on appreciation of
the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the charge against the
appellant and Mr. B. Singh was proved beyond doubt. The Bar Council of
India concluded as under:- H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R.

A ".. .After having gone through the evidence and the docu-
ments. produced in the case carefully, we have come to
the conclusion that the complainant had entrusted the suit
to be filed against M/s Delhi Flooring (Pvt} Ltd. with the
necessary papers and Rs. 11,400.74 for expenses etc. to
the respondent-advocates. It is also established that the
B
respondents have filed the suit on 15.12.1975 with some
objections deliberately and when the papers were
returned by the High Court, they had not refiled the suit
for a pretty long time and as is established till this day.
So, we have no hesitation to conclude that the respondents
c have misappropriated the amount realised by them from
the Bank without filing the suit in a proper manner."

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence on the
record against the appellant. We see no ground to interfere with the order
of the Bar Council of India. We agree with the' reasoning and the con-
D clusions reached therein.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. No costs.

V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.

,,