JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARANversusSRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

                    [2011] 11 S.C.R. 403


               JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN                             A
                               v.
        SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2002)
                  ·SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.
                                                                    B
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                  ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

     ADVOCATES ACT, 1961:
                                                                    c
      s. 35 - Advocate - Professional misconduct - Advocate
engaged by Vikas Pradikaran as a retaining counsel - He
appeared in a reference case on behalf of his sister in which
Vikas Pradikaran was contesting the claims, and also
accepted the engagement given to him by Vikas Pradikaran            0
as it counsel to contest ttJe claims in _the said reference case,
but did not defend it in the case, as a result of which the
compensation was enhanced from Rs. 16,2001- to Rs. 1.25
crores by the reference court - The order was a/so not
communicated to the client - Complaint by the Vikas
Pradikaran against the Advocate - Held: The Advocate had            E
conducted the case at one stage against the complainant
despite being a paid retainer of it and also despite the fact
that there was a conflict of interests - He was under an
obligation to disclose his interest in the case and should have
refused to accept the brief when offered to him - He betrayed       F
the trust reposed on him by the complainant and paved the
way for getting enhancement of compensation for his sister -
The conduct of the Advocate in conducting the case clearly
proves and establishes his misdemeanour and he is guilty
of professional misconduct - It is directed that the Advocate       G
be suspended from practice for a period of six months -
Advocate - Professional ethics - Bar Council of India Rules,
1.961.

                              403                                   H
    404      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A       The appellant, namely, Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran
  which engaged respondent no.1 as its counsel on
  retainer basis, filed a complaint against him u/s.35 of the
  Advocates Act, 1961 as also against two other advocates,
  namely, respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the ground that
B respondent no.1 appeared for one of the claimants who
  was his sister and wife of respondent no. 3, in a reference
  case in which the complainant was contesting the claims;
  that respondent no. 1 should not have accepted the brief
  and his acceptance of the engagement without disclosing
c the material fact amounted to misconduct. It was the case
  of the complainant before the Disciplinary Committee of
  the State Bar Council that respondent no.2 was a
  chamber mate of respondent no.1 and respondent no. 3
  was the brother-in-law. of respondent no.1 and as such
  all the respondents were friends or ~losely related to each
D other and in connivance of respondent no.1, four relatives
  of respondent no.2 and the wife of respondent no.3
  purchased the rights in the property in dispute which
  amounted to professional misconduct and respondent
  no.1 intentionally acted against the interest of the
E appellant in not defending it in the said reference case.
  Since the proceedings in the complaint could not be
  concluded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar
  Council within the stipulated period of one year, the
  complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India,
F which by its judgment dated 24.03.2002 dismissed the
  complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant filed the appeal.

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

G        HELD: 1.1 From the facts.disclosed, it is established
    that an award was passed by the Collector in respect of
    the land in question on 4.3.1982 determining the value of
    the land at Rs.16,200/- for the entire land. At that stage the
    claimants were the three land owners. After the award
    was· passed, the three land owners, transferred the right
H
  JAIPURVIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR 405
                 CHOUDHARY                  .

to receive compensation to 'SS', who executed further        A
assignment deed in favour of 4 relatives of respondent
no. 2 and one Smt. 'A', the sister of respondent no. 1 and
wife of respondent no.3, and they got themselves
substituted as parties-claimants in the reference
proceedings, namely, Reference Case No. 14/1982. After       B
substitution, Smt. 'A' and 4 relatives of respondent No.2
were parties in the reference proceedings as claimants.
Respondent no. 1 appeared in the said reference case on
19.1.1990 for his sister (wife of respondent no.3), namely
Smt. 'A', and despite this, he accepted the engagement       c
given to him by the appellant-complainant as its counsel
to contest the claim of the said contesting claimants, one
of which was his own sister. The records also disclose
that in fact respondent no.1 was the retaining counsel of
the appellant from the year 1989 and, therefore, he could    D
not have entered appearance on behalf of the wife of
respondent no. 3 on 19.1.1990. Respondent no. 1,
therefore, not only appeared for the wife of respondent
no. 3 in the same reference in which he also appeared
for the appellant, who were contesting the claims of the
claimants including his own sister. (para 18-19] (414-G-     E
H; 415-A-F]

       1.2 Further, on 7.12.1991, the written statement was
 · required to be filed, but no such written statement was
   prepared nor was it filed and even respondent no. 1 did F
   not appear in the said proceedings on that date, for
  which the defence of the appellant was struck off. Even
  the said fact was not brought to the notice of the appellant
  by respondent no.1. Even thereafter when the matter was
  listed for recording of evidence on 10.11.1993, G
· respondent no. 1 informed the court that no evidence
  was being produced on behalf of the appellant. That
  statement appears to have been made without any
positive instructions of the appellant in that regard and
without even informing the appellant about the said fact.    H
    406    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A Consequent upon the representation made by
  respondent no. 1, the evidence of th~ appellant was
  closed on 10.11.1993 and the ca· a was fixed for
  arguments. On 2.12.1993 the order was passed by the
  reference court enhancing the compensation from
B Rs.16,200/- to Rs.1.25 crores. The said order was also not
  communicated by respondent no. 1 to the appellant.
  However, the order was later set aside. The defence taken
  was that there was some confusion with regard to the
  appearance slip on 19.1.1990, for the appearance slip
C which was filed in Reference Case No. 14/1482 on
  19.1.1990 was meant for a different case. But the said
  appearance slip appears to have been manipulated later
  on by making over-writing on the same. [para 20) [416-A-
  D; 415-G]

D      1.3 In terms of the engagement of respondent no.1
  and he being a retaining counsel, it is his obligation to
  provide all information regarding the development of the
  case and also to provide copies of the orders passed
  along with his opinion. It was necessary on his part and
E he was duty bound to take steps for recalling the order
  of striking off the defence. At least he should have sent
  such an advice. He had conducted the case at one stage
  against the appellant despite being a paid retainer of the
  appellant and also despite the fact that there was a
F conflict of interests. In fact, respondent no. 1 was under
  an obligation to disclose his interest in the case and
  should have refused to accept the brief when offered to
  him. Nothing of the nature was done and rather he had
  gone a step further by betraying the trust reposed on him
G by the complainant-appellant. He paved the way for
  getting enhancement of compensation for his sister. It is,
  therefore, established that respondent no. 1 stage
  managed the entire proceeding and set the course so that
  the higher claim of the newly substituted claimants are
H accepted-. -[para 21) [416-F-H; 417-A]
 JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR               407
                 CHOUDHARY

   V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopa/an and others 1979 (1)             A
SCR 1054 = (1979) 1 sec 308 - relied on.

     1.4 The activities of respondent no. 1 were
unbecoming of a professional lawyer and also a clear
case" of misdemeanor and misconduct. He did not adhere
                                                                  B
to the professional ethics by which he was bound and
failed to protect the interest of his client. The facts clearly
prove and establish his misdemeanor and misconduct.
This Court finds respondent no.1 guilty of professional
misconduct. The order passed by the Disciplinary                  C
Committee of the Bar Council of India as regards
respondent no. 1 is modified and it is ordered and
directed that he shall be suspended as an Advocate from
practice for a period of six months. [para 19,23,25-27 and
29] [415-F; 418-D; 419-C]
                                                                  D
   Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs. Gurdial Singh 1998 (2) Suppl.
SCR 28 = (1998\ 7 sec 24 - relied on.

     2. So far the allegations against respondent no. 2 are
concerned, he has appeared in Reference Case No. 14/              E·
1982 as a lawyer and he was not a claimant himself. It is
true that he is sitting in the same chamber as that of
respondent no.1, but from this mere fact, it cannot be held
that he is also guilty of the same or sirt:iilar misconduct
as that of respondent no.1. Although his relatives have
purchased the right to claim compensation and have                F
substituted themselves as claimants, but he is only
representing them in the capacity of an Advocate and
except for that no other fact has been proved by the
appellant which would lead to and prove his guilt or could
be said to b.e misconduct. Respondent no. 3 was                   G
representing his wife only in the reference case and was
the chamber-mate of respondent no.1. Although his Wife
was a claimant herself, and there could be an unholy
alliance between his wife and respondent no.1, but there
is not enough evidence on record to prove and establish           H
    408      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2011) 11 S.C.R.


A that respondent no. 3 has committed any misconduct.
  Therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Committee
  holding that respondent no. 2 and 3 are not guilty of the
  charges and allegations of misconduct made against
  them is upheld. [para 28-29) [418-G-H; 419-A-C]
B
                     Case Law Reference:
          1979 (1) SCR 1054        relied on             para 22
          1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 28       relied on         para 25
C       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5099 of 2002.

         From the Judgment & Order aated 24.03.2002 of the
    Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I.
0   Transfer Case No. 74 of 1995.
        Mukul Kumar, Milind Kumar, D.S. Chauhan tor the
    Appellant.

      B.K. Satija, Subodh K. Pathak, D.K. Sinha, M.L. Lahoty,
E Paban K. Sharma, Gargi, Bhatta Bharlab for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The present
  appeal, under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961,
F (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is filed against the final
  judgment dated 24.03.2002 of the Disciplinary Committee of
  the Bar Council of India [hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary
  Committee] in BCI Transfer c'ase No. 74of1995, whereby the
  Committee dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein
G holding that no case of any misconduct is made· out.

        2. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are
  that the present complaint was filed under section 35 of the Act
  by Jaipur Development Authority against the present
H respondents before the State Bar Council of Rajasthan in the
  JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR               409
     CHO!JDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
year 1994 which was entrusted to the Disciplinary Committee        A
of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan. Since the proceedings
could not be completed in the stipulated period of one y~ar,
the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India in the
year 1995, registered as Transfer Case No. 74 of 1995.
                                                                   B
     3. The allegations made in the complaint was that appellant
engaged the Respondent No.1 herein on retainer basis in·
order to defend its cases pending in the different Courts at
Jaipur, Rajasthan. In the year 1990, Respondent No.1 was
appointed to defend Jaipur Development Authority in some           C
Reference cases under' section 18 of the Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Act. Also, on 05.10.1990, Respondent No.1 was
engaged to defend Jaipur Development Authority in the Land
Acquisition Reference No. 14of1982, Abdul Samad & Ors Vs.
Jaipur Development Authority in Civil Court at Jaipur City. Even
his retainership fee was enhanced by additional amount of Rs.      D
600/- per month.                      ...: •

       4. The Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of 1982 was
fixed for filing of the Written Statement. in the Court on
07.12.1991. The Respondent No. 1 neither appeared in the           E
Court on 07.12.1991, nor filed Written Statement on behalf of
the appellant. Consequently, the Court closed the opportunity
for filing the Written Statement on behalf of the appellant vide
order dated 07.12.1991. The Respondent No.1 did not inform
the appellant about the said order dated 07 .12.1991 of the        F
learned Court. The Claimant in the said .Land Acquisition
Reference No. 14of1982 examined the witnesses in the Court,
but the respondent neither cross-examined those witnesses nor
did he inform the appellant about this. Also, in the said
Reference, the date was fixed as 10.11.1993 for producing of       G
the entire e9idence but no fntimation regarding the aforesaid
date was given by the Respondent to the appellant, as a result
of which evidence of the Appellant was ordered to be closed
by the learned Court. The Respondent also did not inform the
appellant about the aforesaid order dated 10.11.1993.
                                                                   H
    410     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A       5. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Reference No. 14 of
  1982 was decided on 02.12.1993 against the appellant and
  in that Judgment, an award of Rs. 1.25 crore was announced
  by the Court. Even the final order passed by the Court was not
  conveyed to the appellant. The appellant came to know about
B the passing of the aforesaid order for the first time on
  24.0~.1994 when Mr. Manak Chand Surana - Respondent No.
  2 filed Execution Petition No. 20 of 1993 in the Executing Court
  and another Execution Petition was filed by Mrs. Asha Gupta,
  wife of Respondent No. 3.
c      6. The appellant sought indulgence of the State Bar
  Council of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action against the
  respondents as envisaged under section 35 of the Act on the
  aforesaid grounds. It was also contended that Respondent No.
  2 work in the same chamber in which the Respondent No.1 has
D been sitting and that Respondent No. 3 is the brother-in-law of
  Respondent No.1. Hence, in this manner, all the Respondents
  are closely related to each other or friends and in connivance
  of Respondent No. i. the Respondent No. 2 and wife of
  Respondent No. 3 purchased the rights in the said property in
E order to earn profit out of the property in dispute which
  amounted to professional misconduct. The Respondent No.1
  intentionally acted against the interest of the appellant in
  defending the said Reference.

F      7. The complaint was entrusted to the Disciplinary
  Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan, but since the
  proceedings in the complaint could not be concluded by the
  Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan
  within the stipulated period of one year, the same was
G transferred to the Bar Council of India in the year 1995.

         8. The Bar Council of India vide final Judgment dated
    24.03.2002, dismissed the complaint. It is against this judgment
    of the Bar Council of India dated 24.03.2002, that the Jaipur
    Vikas Pradhikaran has preferred an appeal under section 38
H
   IAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR                411
      CHOUDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J ]

 of the Act, upon which we heard the learned counsel appearing       A
 for the parties.

        9. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
. who had taken us through the entire records. Counsel appearing
· for the appellant submitted before us that the order passed by 8
  the Disciplinary Committee .of the Bar Council of India was
  illegal and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It was submitted
  by the counsel that the findings of the Disciplinary Committee
  that the allegation that the respondent no.1 did not conduct the
  case of the complainant properly was not proved on file is · C
  incorrect and against the records. He also assailed the findings
  of the Disciplinary Committee to the effect that the respondent
  no. 1 was not at all negligent in conducting the case of the
  complainant and submitted that the said findings are contrary
  to the records on which he had relied upon. Various instances
  of alleged misconducts, misdemeanors and misdeeds of the D
  respondent no.1, respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 were
  brought out by analyzing and referring to the contents of the
  complaint and also the evidence led by the parties.

      10. The counsel appearing for the appellant also analyzed      E
 the sequence of events and placed before us a list of dates to
 support the contention that the respondent no. 1 on and after
 accepting the engagement from the appellant acted in violation
 of the professional ethics and also abused the trust reposed
 on him. He has in that context placed the following facts for our   F
 consideration.

      11. He submitted that the complaint which was filed by the
 appellant stated that the respondent no. 1 was retained by the
 appellant institution in the year 1989 to conduct all such cases
 pending before the Civil Court filed against the institution. That G
 the respondent no. 1 was also authorised in 1990 to appear
 and plead in all the reference cases filed against the appellant
 herein and also in all pendi11g references and due to the .
 aforesaid engagement, t~e appellant granted a special
 enhancement of a sum of Rs.600/- per month to the respondent H
    412     SUPREME COURTREPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A no.1 in his monthly retainership. It is also disclosed from the
  records that the reference case no. 14/1982 which is the basis
  and the subject matter of the complaint filed, was a land
  acquisition matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
  pending in the Civil Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein the
B respondent no. 1 was authorised to conduct the case on behalf.
  of the appellant as a counsel. The authorisation was on
  5.10.1990 and he started conducting the said case from the
  said date. It is, however, also disclosed from the records placed
  before us that the aforesaid reference case no. 14/1982, the
c Collector passed an award in favour of the land owners, namely,
  Sh. Abdul Samad, Abdul Latif and Abdul Hamid determining
  the land compensation of Rs.16,200/- only for the entire land.

        12. One Mrs. Shanta Sharma, thereafter purchased the right
   to seek compensation in the said land on 20.9.1980 and
D ·5.2.1982. On 30.1.1990, Smt. Shanta Sharma executed an
   assignment deed in favour of relatives of respondent no. 2,
   namely, Vimla Surana, Rajendra Surana, Jitendra Surana and
   Manak Surana and Smt. Asha Gupta, wife of respondent no.3,
   who also happens to be the sister of respondent no.1. It is
E shown from the records that the respondent no.2 and the
   respondent no.3 have been appearing for the claimants
   claiming higher compensation before the Reference Court after
   the relatives of the respondent no. 2 and the wife of respondent
   no.3 got themselves substituted in place of original owners.
F They were contesting parties in the Reference Court who were
   represented by respondent no.2 and the respondent no.3.

        13. He also pointed out that on 19.1.1990, respondent no.
   1 appeared for the wife of the respondent no. 3 who was his
G sister, she having been substituted as a claimant in the
   proceeding. Despite the said fact, it appears that on 5.10.1990,
   the appellant engaged respondent no.1 as its counsel, which
   engagement was accepted by the respondent no. 1 without
 . disclosing the fact that he had already appeared in the case
   on behalf of respondent no.3. Be that as it may, date was fixed
H
  JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR                 413
     CHOUDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

in the said proceeding on 7.12.1991 when the written                 A
statement was to be filed. It appears that the respondent no.1
who was representing the appellant herein, did not appear in
the proceeding on that date nor had he prepared the written
statement. Since the written statement was not filed, and the
respondent no. 1 also did not appear on the date fixed, the          B
defence of the appellant was struck off. but the said fact was
not brought to the notice of the appellant by the respondent no.1.
Thereafter in the said reference proceedings, a date was fixed
for leading evidence. On the said date i.e. 10.11.1993,
respondent no. 1 informed the court that no evidence is to be        c
produced on behalf of the appellant. In view of the aforesaid
statement made by the respondent no.1, an order was passed
closing the evidence and fixing the matter for final hearing.

      14. The reference was argued thereafter and it is the
contention of the appellant that the respondent no. 1 did not        D
argue the said reference properly. Be that as it may, on
2.12.1993, an order came to be passed enhancing the
compensation for the acquired land from Rs.16,200/- to
Rs.1.25 crores. The allegation of the appellant is that even the
said order was not communicated and that the appellant came          E
to know about the aforesaid position and also of the order
increasing the value of compensation only from the execution
case filed. Further allegation was that when the defence was
struck out, the respondent no. 1 did not appear nor did he take
any steps for getting the said order recalled. He also did not       F
even communicate the order and even thereafter, there was no
communication when the final order was passed despite t~e
fact that he was required to inform the development of the case
at each step. So far the respondent no. 2 and 3 are concerned,
the allegation was that the said respondent no. 2 and 3 are also     G
Advocates who share the same chamber with respondent no.
1. They also filed common and joint application for allotment
of chamber which indicate that they are working together and,
therefore, they are also parties to the aforesaid conspiracy of
                                                                     H
 ...

       414     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A      obtaining practically an ex-parte order against the appellant so
       as to derive illegal benefit.

           15. Be it stated herein that later on the application filed by
       the appellant, the aforesaid judgment and order of the
       Reference Court has since been set aside.
8
        16. In view of the aforesaid alleged lapses and willful default
  on the part of the respondent no.1, the aforesaid complaint was
  filed by the appellant under Section 35 of the Advocates Act
  alleging misconduct against the respondent no.1, as also the
C respondent no. 2 and 3 on the ground that the respondent no.1
  appeared for claimant prior to his engagement as counsel for
  the appellant. It was also alleged that since an assignment deed
  was made out in favour of the sister of the respondent no.1 on
  30.1.1990, the respondent no. 1 should not have accepted the
D brief and the very fact that he accepted the engagement without
  disclosing the material facts, proves and establishes the
  allegation of misconduct.

       17. The various contentions of the counsel appearing for
E the appellant were, however, refuted by the counsel appearing
  for all the respondents, namely, respondents no. 1, 2 and 3.
  They have relied upon the replies filed by the said respondents
  to the complaint filed and also on the findings recorded by the
  Disciplinary Committee while exonerating all the respondents.

F      18. In the light of the aforesaid submissions~ let us examine
  the facts of the present case. From the facts disclosed
  hereinbefore, it is established that an award was passed by
  the Collector in respect of the land in question on 4.3.1982
  determining the value of the land at Rs.16,200/- for the entire
G land. At that stage the claimants were the three land owners.
  After the aforesaid award was passed, the three land owners,
  namely, Abdul Samad and two others transferred the right to
  receive compensation to Smt. Shanta Sharma on 20.9.1980
  and 5.2.1982. Smt. Shanta Sharma thereafter executed the
H assignment deed in favour of relatives of respondent no. 2 ,
  JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR               415
     CHOUDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
namely, Vimla Surana, Rajendra Surana, Jitendera Surana and         A
Manak Surana in whose favour also the aforesaid assignment
deed was made out. The records available also disclose that
the aforesaid relatives of respondent no.2 and Smt. Asha
Gupta, wife of respondent no.3 also got themselves substituted
in the reference proceedings, which is Reference Case No. 14/       B
1982. These persons got ttiemselves substituted only on the
basis of .such assignment without which they had no right to get
themselves substituted in place of original owners. After
substitution, Smt. Asha Gupta, the wife of respondent no.3 and
sister of respondent no.1 and the aforesaid relatives of            c
respondent no.2 were parties in the reference proceedings as
claimants. Respondent no. 1 appeared in the said reference
case on 19.1.1990 for his sister (wife of respondent no.3).

      19. Despite the aforesaid fact, the respondent no.1
 accepted the engagement given to him by the appellant as its       D
 counsel to contest the claim of the aforesaid contesting
 claimants, one of which was his own sister. We also find from
 the records that in fact the respondent no.1 was the retaining
 counsel of the appellant from the year 1989 and, therefore, he
 could not have entered appearance on behalf of the wife of the     E
 respondent no. 3 on 19.1.1990. The respondent no. 1 therefore
 not only appeared for the wife of the respondent no. 3 in the
·same reference in which he also appeared for the appellant,
 who were contesting the claims of the claimant including his own
 sister. These activities of the respondent no. 1 were              F
 unbecoming of a professional lawyer and also clear cases of
 misconduct.

    20. The defence taken was that there was some confusion
with regard to the appearance slip on 19.1.1990 for the             G
appearance slip which was filed in the aforesaid reference case
on 19.1.1990 was meant for a different case. But the said
appearance slip appears to have been manipulated later on
by making over-writing on the same. The misdemeanor of the
respondent no. 1 did not end only with the aforesaid position.
                                                                    H
    416     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A On 7.12.1991, the written statement was required to be filed,
  but no such written statement was prepared nor was it filed and
  even respondent no. 1 did not appear in the said proceedings
  on that date, for which the defence of the appellant was struck
  off. Even the said fact was not brought to the notice of the
B appellant by the respondent no.1. Even thereafter when the
  matter was listed for recording of evidence on 10.11.1993, the
  respondent no. 1 informed the court that no evidence was being
  produced on behalf of the appellant. That statement appears
  to have been made without any positive instructions of the
c appellant in that regard and without even informing the appellant
  about the said fact. Consequent upon the aforesaid
  representation made by the respondent no. 1, the evidence of
  the appellant was closed on 10.11, 1993 and the case was fixed
  for arguments. On 2.12.1993 the order was passed by the
0 Reference Court enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,200/
  - to Rs.1.25 crores. The said order .was also not communicated
  by the respondent no. 1 to the ·appellant.

         21. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 however,
    during his course of arguments, sub1nitted that he was not
E   required to apply for any certified copy and send the same to
    the appellant in terms of his engagement. But the said fact is
    belied from the fact that in terms of his engagement and he
    being a retaining counsel, it is his obligation to provide all
    information regarding the development of the case and also to
F   provide copies of the orders passed along with his opinion. It
    was neces~ary on his part and he was duty bound to take steps
    for recalling the order of striking off the defence. At least he
    should have sent such an advice. He had conducted the case
    at one stage against the appellant despite being a paid retainer
G   of the appellant and also despite the fact that there was a
    conflict of interest. In fact, the respondent no. 1 was under an
    obligation to disclose his interest in the case and should have
    refused to accept the brief when offered to him. Nothing of the
    nature was done and rather he paved the way for getting
H   enhancement of compensation for his sister. It is therefore
    JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR                   417
       CHOUDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
· ·. established that the respondent no. 1 stage managed the entire       A
     proceeding and set the course so that the higher claim of the
     newly substituted claimants are accepted.

       22. In the case of V.C. Rangadurai Vs. D. Gopalan and
  others reported in (1979) 1 SCC 308, a three Judges Bench               B
  of this Court has stated and outlined the duties and
  responsibilities of a counsel. In paragraph 30 of the said
  judgment this Court has held that counsel's paramount duty is
  to the client and accordingly where he forms an opinion that a
  conflict of interest exists, his duty is to advise the client that he   C
  should engage some other lawyer. It was further held that it is
  unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by
  express consent given by all concerned after a full disclosure
  of the facts. The Court further went on to hold that the relation
  between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature
  and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character            D
  requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith and that it is
  purely a personal relationship, involving the highest personal
  trust and confidence which cannot be delegated without
  consent. This Court also held that when a lawyer is entrusted
  with a brief, he is expected to follow the norms of professional        E
  ethics and try to protect the interests of his clients, in relation
  to whom he occupies a position of trust.

       23. In the present case, it appears to us that the respondent
  no. 1 had not only not disclosed the conflicting interests that he F
  had in the matter but had gone a step further by betraying the
  trust reposed on him by the complainant. The facts which are
  analyzed clearly prove the guilt of the respondent no. 1. He .
  acted in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer, who was bound by
  ethical conduct and failed to protect the interest of his client.
                                                                     G
        24. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, however,
  submitted that a case of this nature must be proved beyond all
  reasonable doubts and not on preponderance of probabilities.
  There is no dispute of the aforesaid position as it is also held
  in th.e aforesaid case by this Court that findings in disciplinary      H
    418      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   proceedings must be sustained by high degree of proof than
    that is required in civil suits, yet falling short of the proof required
    to sustain a conviction in a criminal prosecution.

       25. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 also drew
8 our attention to a two judges decision of this Court in Pawan
  Kumar Sharma Vs. Gurdial Singh reported in (1998) 7 SCC
  24 wherein this Court has held that charge of professional
  misconduct is in the nature of quasi criminal charge and due
  to the same, it is required to be established not by
  preponderance of probabilities, but beyond a reasonable
C doubt. Even keeping in view the aforesaid standard of proof in
  mind, we find that by the sequence of events as mentioned in
  the case and proved through evidence led that the respondent
  no. 1 did not adhere to the professional ethics by which he was
  bound as stated hereinbefore.
D
       26. The factual narration which has been given and the
  conduct of the respondent no.1 in conducting the case clearly
  proves and establishes his misdemeanor and misconduct and,
  therefore, we find the respondent no.1 guilty of professional
E misconduct.

         27. We, therefore, order and direct that respondent no.1
    be suspended as an Advocate from practice for a period of
    six months from today.

F      28. So far as the defence raised by the respondent nos.
  2 and 3 is concerned, we have considered the same in the light
  of the records also. So far the allegations against the
  respondent no. 2 are concerned, he has appeared in the
  aforesaid reference case as a lawyer and he was not a
G claimant himself. It is true that he is sitting in the same chamber
  as that of respondent no.1, but from this mere fact, it cannot
  be held that he is also guilty of the same or similar misconduct
  as that of respondent no.1. Although his relatives have
  purchased the right to claim compensation and have substituted
H themselves as claimants, but he is only representing them in
 JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. SRI ASHOK KUMAR                419
    CHOUDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

the capacity of an Advocate and except for that no other fact      A
has been proved by the appellant which would lead to and prove
his guilt or could be said to be a misconduct. Similarly, so far
as respondent no. 3 is concerned, he was representing his wife
only in the reference case and was the chamber-mate of the
respondent no.1. Although his wife was a claimant herself, there   B
could be an unholy alliance between his wife and the respondent
no.1, but there is not enough evidence on record to prove and
establish that the respondent no. 3 has committed any
misconduct.

     29. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Disciplinary
                                                                   c
Committee holding that the respondent no. 2 and 3 are not
guilty of the charges and allegations of misconduct made
against them. So far as respondent no. 1 is concerned, we.
modify the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the ·.
Bar Council of India and direct that he shall be suspended as D
an Advocate from practice for a period of six months from
today.

    30. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
order. There will be no order as to costs.                         E

R.P.                                      Appeal disposed of.