http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: R.JANARDHANA RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.LINGAPPA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/01/1999

BENCH: S.B. Majmudar, U.C. Banerjee.

JUDGMENT:

S.B.Majmudar.J.

       The  appellant  who  is  a  practising  Advocate has brought in challenge the order passed by the Bar Council  of India under  the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961.  holding him guilty  of  professional  misconduct  and  ordering  his suspension from practice for a period of two years.

       A few facts leading to this  appeal  deserve  to  be noted.

       One  G.Rami  Reddy  had  filed  a  suit  against the respondent-complainant, G.    Lingappa  and  another   being 0.S.No.   173  of 1983 on the file of Assistant Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of  partnership. In  the  suit, the appellant represented the opponent of the present respondent- complainant.  In the suit,  the  parties negotiated for  compromise.    As per the terms of agreement dated 2.7.1984 a compromise memo was filed in the Court.  On the day of compromise, the complainant however was  paid  an amount   of  Rs.l2,000/-  cash  though  he  had  to  receive R3.3,000/- more meaning Rs.l5,000/-.  It is the case of  the conplainant-respondent  before  the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh that after the said compromise was entered into, the appellant- Advocate for the other side called  him for  a  cup  of tea in the canteen and persuaded him to give him a hand loan of Rs.3,000/- as he was in urgent  heed  for providing furniture  for  the School run by his wife.  It is the further case  of  the  respondent  that  accordingly  he parted  with  Rs.3,000/-  against  a post dated cheque dated 8.3.1984 given by the appellant to him.    The  said  cheque being presented  bounced.   Despite repeated requests of the complainant- respondent, the appellant did  not  refund  the said amount.    Hence,  according  to him, the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct.  A  complaint  was  filed before the  State  Bar  Council  of  Andhra  Pradesh.    The appellant contested the  proceedings.    After  hearing  the parties  and  recording  the  evidence  offered by them, the State Bar Council came to the conclusion that the  appellant was  guilty  of  professional  misconduct  and  hence he was ordered to be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of two years from the date of- receipt of the  order. Appellant’s appeal before the Bar Council of India failed as its  Disciplinary  Committee  was  not  inclined  to  take a contrary view.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       Having  heard learned counsel for the parties, it is found that all that  the  complainant  alleged  was  to  the effect  that  the  appellant  being an Advocate of the other side arid after  settling  the  civil  dispute  between  the parties  by  way of compromise had persuaded the complainant to part with an amount of Rs.3,000/- by way of a hand  loan. The  post  dated  cheque  given  by  him  to the complainant bounced and the appellant did  not  repay  the  amount  even thereafter despite  repeated request.  In our opinion, these type of allegations even taken at the  highest,  would  show that  the  complainant  was persuaded to give a hand loan of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant and that amount was  not  repaid by him.    It  is pertinent to note that the appellant while taking the loan from the respondent on any pretext  was  not acting in his professional capacity qua the complainant.  He was  acting  as a needy person and persuaded the creditor to give him an amount of Rs.3,000/-.  If that  amount  was  not paid back, civil remedy was available to the complainant and if the cheque had bounced after coming into force of Section 138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,  it  might  have resulted in criminal litigation, but however so far  as  the professional  misconduct is concerned, we fail to appreciate as to how  the  Disciplinary  Committee  of  the  State  Bar Council  held  that  the  appellant  qua the complainant had committed any professional misconduct because he had taken a hand loan from the complainant-respondent and not repaid it. It is also to  be  noted  that  against  the  order  of  the Disciplinary  Committee  of  the  Bar Council of India, this Court as early as on 8.11.1939 issued notice  and  suspended the order  of  the  Bar Council of India.  The said order is continuing althroushout  and  we  are  informed  by  learned counsel  for  the  appellant  that  the  appellant  is still practising.  By an  order  dated  9.9.1991  in  presence  of learned  counsel  for the respondent this Court had directed that the appellant shall take  step  to  deposit  a  sum  of Rs.3,000/-  in the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks for payment to tne  respondent.    Office  report shows  that  the amount was already deposited as early as on 25.9.1991.  Learned counsel for the respondent  states  that this amount   is   still   not   withdrawn.     Under  these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellant cannot be  said to be  guilty  of  any  professional misconduct.  It is also interesting to note that in  the  very  examination-in-chief before  the  Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council the complainant stated that if Rs.3,000/ is paid to him,  he  is prepared to  withdraw  the complaint.  We fail to appreciate how the appellant being a practising Advocate did not  .take up  this  opportunity  to close the chapter as admittedly he had taken the loan and  had  not  repaid  the  same  to  the complainant creditor.  That shows an inadvertant conduct on’ the part of the appellant but still it does not make out any profeasional misconduct.    We  would have understood if the appellant was alleged to have misused his position  and  had taken  any  money  from his own client and had retained that amount.  That would have been a clear case  of  professional misconduct view of the decision of this Court in the case of N.B.  Mirzan  v.    The  Disciplinary  Committee  of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Anr.  reported in  (1972)  4  SCC 412.  But  this  is not one case.  There was no professional obligation  or  duty  of  the   appellant   qua   respondent complainant who was a third party and who was no better than a third party creditor qua the appellant.

       In the result, the order passed  by  the  State  Bar Council  of Andhra Pradesh and the Disciplinary Committee of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the Bar Council of India are set  aside  and  the  complaint filed by  the  complainant is dismissed.  However, an amount of Rs.3,000/- which is lying in the Registry of  this  Court shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent towards his dues.    We  deem  it fit to award by way of cost to the respondent-complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/-  which  shall additionally  be  paid  by  the  appellant to the respondent within a period of four weeks from  today,  meaning  thereby the respondent will be entitled to withdraw Rs.3,000/- which is  lying  in  the  Registry of this Court and an additional amount of Rs.1,000/-.  Learned counsel for the appellant  is permitted  to  deposit  this amount of cost of Rs.1,000/- in the Regisrtry of this Court which will be  permitted  to  be withdrawn by the respondent on due identification along with already deposited amount towards full and final satisfaction of his  money  claim  against  the appellant.  The appeal is allowed  accordingly  subject  to  the  order  of  cost   as aforesaid directed to be paid to the respond