http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: D.S. DALAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/03/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 1608            1993 SCR  (2) 488  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 557 JT 1993 (2)   337  1993 SCALE  (2)78

ACT: Advocates  Act,  1961 : Section 38-Appeal against  order  of Disciplinary  Committee of Bar Council of  India-Proceedings against Advocates-Findings-whether proper.

HEADNOTE: Respondent-Bank lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi  against  the appellant-Advocate,  alleging  that  the appellant  and  two other Advocates of the M/s.   Singh  and Company, (a Firm of Advocates and solicitors) were guilty of serious professional misconduct, as they failed to discharge their.professional duties and responsibilities entrusted  to them. The case of the Bank was that in 1975, the Bank engaged  the Firm  to  rile  a  recovery suit for  the  recovery  of  Rs. 6,12,164.10  from M/s.  Delhi Flooring (P) Ltd.  and  handed over   the  case-rile  containing  original   and   valuable documents. The Firm submitted a bill for riling the recovery suit which included  the  professional  fees  and  other  miscellaneous charges.   On 15.11.1975 the 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. 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. On  23.1977,  the Bank was informed by Mr.  Arora,  Advocate that 489 suit  was  filed  on 15.12.1975 in the  High  Court  and  on 31.1.1976,  it  was returned by the Original Branch  to  the Registry  with  objections.   Mr.  Arora,  Advocate  further informed  the Bank on 31.3.1977 that the entire  suit  paper book  was  returned to Mr. Singh, Advocate of  the  Firm  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

27.7.1976  for removing the object-ions and  thereafter  the suit was not refiled. The  respondent-Bank,  therefore,  claimed  before  the  Bar Council  of  Delhi  that the appellant  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  the  case of the Bar Council of India,  as  the case was pending for more than one year. The  Bar  Council  of India  issued  notices  returnable  on 2.11.1980. The appellant and his associates were not present on  that  date.   Therefore fresh notices  were  issued  for 20.12.1980.  The appellant did not present on  20.12.1980and 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 the ex parte order dated 20.12.1980, which 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 application  for adjournment  was rejected.  The evidence was concluded,  ar- guments were heard and the order was reserved. (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.) 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. 490 The appellant riled the appeal before this Court, while  his associate, riled a review petition before the Bar Council of India,  which was still pending.  The Bar Council  of  India granted him stay of the order dated 24.10.1981 in the review proceeding. The  appellant  contended  that the suit was  filed  by  the appellant on 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  rile being not traceable; and that the record  of  the suit was to be structured and refiled. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 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 first time.  Apart from the ipse  dixit  of  the appellant and Mr.B.Singh  in  the  said letter, there is no evidence on the record to show that  the suit rile was misplaced or lost by the High Court  Registry. On the other hand, there 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  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.   There is no ground to interfere with the  order  of the Bar Council of India. [495H, 496D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

JUDGMENT: 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.T R. Case No. 28 of 1979. B.Singh, S.K.Gambhir and Davinder Singh for the Appellant. R.P.Kapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 491 KULDIP  SINGH,  J. D.S. Dalal was a practising  advocate  in Delhi.  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. 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  "M/s 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 Bank of India to file a  recovery  suit against  M/s 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. It is the case of the complainant that in the year 1975, the file relating to the case which was to be filed against  m/s Delhi Flooring (Pvt) Ltd., containing original and  valuable documents,  was handed over to the Firm by the  complainant. Thereafter,  the  Firm  submitted  a  bill  for  filing  the 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   1/3rd   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 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  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 other-,vise  and the bank was kept  in the  dark  about  the  fate of the  case  entrusted  to  the appellant and his associates. 492 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

returned  by the original Branch on January 31, 1976 to  the Registry  of the High 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  objection and  thereafter  the  suit  has not  been  re-filed  in  the Registry of the High Court of Delhi. The  complainant, therefore, claimed that the appellant  and his   associates   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   that   the   appellant   and   his   associates   had misappropriated  the  money  paid to  them  for  court  fee, miscellaneous  expenses  and one third of  the  professional 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 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 fresh  notices were  issued for December 20, 1980.  Mr. D.S. Dalal,  though served  was not present on December 20, 1980 and as such  ex parte  proceedings  were ordered.  Notice to Mr.  B.  Singh, Advocate was returned with the postal endorsement "refused". He was also ordered to be proceeded ex parte.  The 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  conditionally permitting  the appellant to participate in the  proceedings and  the  case  was  adjourned to  February  27,  1981.   On February  27,  1981, three witnesses were  examined  in  the presence  of  the  appellant  and  he  cross-examined  them. Thereafter  the  case was adjourned from time  to  time  and finally  fixed  for  evidence  on  August  22,  1981.    The appellant  again sent an application for  adjournment  which was rejected.  The evidence was con- 493 cluded,  arguments were heard and the order  reserved.   The Bar Council of 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 purposely with a view to  protract               the proceedings unnecessarily’. It  may be mentioned 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. 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. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

order  dated  October 24, 1981 with the  result  that  Mr.B. Singh  is continuing with his legal practise.   This  appeal was argued before 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  connected documents and papers were  received  by them.    Mr.B.Singh,  learned  counsel   for-the   appellant primarily argued that the suit was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court on December 15, 19’/5 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. 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 494               "However, as already intimated two bank cases-               one  of  Delhi Flooring (P) Ltd. of  Asaf  Ali               Road   branch   and   second   of   J.M.A.I.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 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 insisting on the payment  of  his               outstanding bills first.  The undersigned  can               work only when he is allowed to work in  terms               of  his  approved  schedule of  fees  and  the               payment is made of all his bill, forthwith." 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 dixit 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-.   Court  Registry returned  back the papers to, Mr. B. Singh for removing  the 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               "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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             15th December, 1975. 1 found from the  records                             that the office has not registered the suit               495               because  of certain objections raised  by  the               office.   I also 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 High Court office was during March 1977               and  till  that  date the suit  had  not  been               refiled by the respondents." 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 :-               "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  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   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. R.P.Arora,  Advocate gave the following information  to  the bank:-               "I have enquired from the Original section  of               High  Court  of Delhi at New Delhi,  that  the               file of the above stated case was returned  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." 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:- 496               "..After having gone through the evidence  and               the documents 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 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 tiff this day.  So, we have  no               hesitation  to conclude that the  respondents,               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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

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  conclusions   reached therein. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.  No costs. V.P.R.                    Appeal dismissed. 497