http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

P.D. GUPTA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RAM MURTI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/07/1997

BENCH:

S.C. AGRAWAL, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1997

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal

Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa

Yogesh K. Jain, Sr. Adv., Pravir K. Jian, M.A. Khan, B.K.

Sharma, and Rajiv Dutta, Addvs. with him for the appellant

In-person for the Respondent in No.1

The following Judgment of the court was delivered :

D.P. WADHWA, J.

The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. He

ha filed this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act,

1961 ( in short the Act,) against order dated May 4, 1996

of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar council of India

holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from

practice for a period of one Year. This order by the Bar

council of India was passed as the Disciplinary committed

of the Bar council of Delhi could not dispose of the

complaint received by it with in a period of one year and

proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar council of

India under section 36 B of the Act. Section 36 B enjoins

upon the Disciplinary committee of state Bar council to

dispose of the complaint receive by it under section 35 of

the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the

proceedings within one case to conclude the proceedings

within one year from the date of the receipt of the

complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at

the instance of the state Bar Council. Under Section 35 of

the Act where on the receipt of a complaint or otherwise

the state bar council has reason to believe that any

advocate on it s role has been guilty of professional or

other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to

its Disciplinary Committee.

One Srikishan Dass died on January 5, 1980 leaving

behind extensive properties, both movable and immovable. One

Vidya wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir

of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the

Indian Succession Act in the court of District Judge, Delhi

for grant of probate/letters of administration to the estate

of deceased Srikishan Dass. This she filed in February,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

1980. It is not that there was any will. The complainant

Ram Murti (who is now respondent before us ) and tow other

persons also laid claim to the properties of Srikishan Dass

claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three

different wills. They also filed separate proceeding under

section 276 of the Indian succession Act before the District

Judge, Delhi. Since there was disoute regarding inheritance

to the properties of srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also filed

a civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and

injunction against various defendants numbering 23,

including the complainant Ram Murti who is defendant No.

21. This suit was filed on February, 10 1982. Vidya wati had

prayed for a decree of injunction against the defendants

restraining them from trespassing into property bearing No.

4852 Harbans Singh street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from

interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and

enjoyment of immovable properties detailed in Schedule-A to

the plaint. She also sought a declaration that she was the

absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the

schedule. It is not necessary for us to detail the

properties shown in schedule-A except to note two

properties at 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi bearing No. 4852 and

4852-A. It is stated that this suit is still pending in

the Delhi High court and all the proceedings under section

276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons

relating to the estate of Srikishan Dass have also been

transferred from the court of District Judge. Delhi to the

High court and are being tried alongwith the suit filed by

Vidya wati also filed various other proceedings respecting

the properties left by deceased Srikishan Dass against

occupants or otherwise. P.D. Gupta, advocate who is

appellant before us had been her counsel throughout in all

these proceedings. The complaint alleged against him is that

though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right of

Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of Srikishan Dass on

account of pendency of various proceedings and further that

the complainant and others had alleged that she was in fact

an imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was

false yet P.D. Gupta purchase ground floor of property

bearing No. 4858-A 24 Daryaganj from Vidya Wati by sale-

deed dated December 30, 1982. The complainant also alleged

that Vidya Wati had been describing herself either as the

real sister, step sister or even halfblood sister of

Srikishan Dass which fact was well known to P.D. Gupta, her

counsel.

It is not for us to go into the merits or demerits of

the controversy raised by the parties in various

proceedings pending in the courts and still awaiting

adjudication, the grievance of the complainant is as to how

an advocate could purchase property from his client which

property is the subject matter of dispute between the

parties in a court of law. During the course of hearing of

this appealing was also brought to our notice that second

floor of the property bearing No. 4858-A, 24 Daryaganj was

purchased by Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-low of the advocate

P.D. Gupta Sola the property purchased by him in November,

1987 for a consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/- in December,

1982. It is pointed out that the facts relating to

purchase of different portions of property No. 4858-A, 24

Daryagnaj and subsequent sale by P.D. Gupta in buying the

property from Vidya Wati in the circumstances aforesaid who

had been describing herself some time as half blood sister,

real sister or even step-sister of Srikishan Dass. The

explanation given by P.D. Gupta is that though Vidya Wati

was step-sister of srikishan Dass but the later always

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

treated her like her real sister and that is how vidya Wati

also at times described herself as real sister.

There are some more facts which could also be noted.

Vidya Wati herself has died and she is stated to be survived

by ger only daughter maya Devi who is also now dead. before

her death Vidya Wati allegedly executed a will in favour of

her grandson Anand Prakash bansal who is stated to be the

son of maya Devi bequeathing all her properties to him.

Vidya Wati died on October 26, 1991 and Maya Devi on April

13, 1992, It is stated that P.P. Bansal has been acting as

General Attorney of vidya Wati and instructing P.D. Gupta.

In support of his case P.D. Gupta filed affidavit of

Anand Prakash Bansal wherein it is claimed that saledeeds

executed by Vidya Wati in favour of P.D. Gupta and his son-

in low Suresh Kumar Gupta were without any pressure from

any one and were by free will of vidya Wati. P.D. Gupta

has claimed that complaint filed by Ram Murti is motivated

and he himself had no title to the properties of srikishan

Dass being no relation of his and the will propounded by

him had been found to be forged as opined by the CFSL\CBI

laboratory. The fact that the will propounded by the court.

In the affidavit filed by P.D. Gupta in answer to the

complaint of Ram Murti he has stated that "Lala Srikishan

Dass left behind his sister Smt. Vidya Wati who succeeded

to the estate on death of Lala Srikishan Dass and took over

the entire movable and immovable estate. Thereafter the

complainant and two other persons propounded will of Lala

Srikishan Dass". This statement of P.D. Gupta has been

verified by him as true and correct to his knowledge. It

does appear to us to be rather odd for a lawyer to verify

such facts to his knowledge. It is claimed that when

Srikishan Dass died, subject immovable property was plot

bearing No.4858-A, 24 Daryaganj measuring 1500 sq. feet and

the same was got mutated in the name of Vidya Wati in the

records of the Municipal corporation of Delhi and then she

got plan sanctioned from the Municipal corporation of

Delhi for construction of the house on this plot and which

she did construct and got completion certificate on August

28, 1981. It is peculiar, rather astounding, how could

Vidya Wati get the property of Srikishan Dass mutated in

her name when she is yet to be granted letters of

administration or declaration to her title.

We examined the two sale-deeds transferring this

property, one executed in favour of P.D. Gupta and other in

favour of his son-in-law Suresh Kumar Gupta and we

complainant and the concerned parties."

In the sale deed which is dated December 30, 1982

executed in favour of P.D. Gupta recitals show that the

agreement to sale was entered into on September 3, 1980.

The completion certificate of the building was obtained on

August 28, 1981 Payment of Rs. 1,50000/- made before

execution of the sale deed on various dates from 3.8.80 to

20.11.1981 by means of cheques except one payment of Rs.

10.000/- made by cash on September 3, 1980. balance amount

of consideration of Rs. 30,000/- was paid at the time of

registration of the sale deed there is no mention of any

civil suit respecting this property pending in the High

Court. Rather it is stated that vendor had constructed

various floors and had assured/represented to the vendee

that she had a good and marketable title to the property and

the same was free form all sorts of liens, charges,

encumbrances or others like burdens, and in case any defect

in the title of the vendor was later on proved, the vendor

undertook to compensate the vendee for all losses, damages

and claims, which might be caused to him in this regard. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

the other sale deed dated December 2, 1982 executed in

favour of son-in-law of P.D. Guta. Which was filed during

course of hearing course of hearing of this appeal, it is

mentioned that after obtaining completion certificate on

August 28,1981 Vidya Wati let out the second floor of the

property comprising five rooms, kitchen, two bathrooms on

monthly rent of rupees five hundred to Suraj Bhan Gupta.

Recitals to this deed show that in order to retch better

price Vidya wati agreed to sell the property being second

floor which according to her was not giving good return

for consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- to Suresh Kumar Gupta.

Now this Suresh Kumar Gupta son-in-law of P.D. Gupta is

no other person than the son of Suraj Bhan Gupta, the

tenant. There is no mention of any agreement to sell in this

sale-deed but what we find is that first payment of Rs.

20,000/- towards consideration was made on November 5,

1981, second payment of Rs. 25,000/- on February 20, 1982

and third of Rs. 30,000/- on April 26, 1982. Balance

Payment has been made at the time of execution of the sale

deed on December 2, 1982.

Bar Council of India has taken note of the following

facts:

1. P.D. Gupta claims to know vidya wati since 1980 when

Srikishan Dass was alive. He knew Vidya wati closely and yet

contradictory stands were taken by Vidya wati when she

varyingly described herself as half-blood sister, real

sister or step-sister of Srikishan Dass. These contradictory

stands in fact cast doubt ion the very ekistence of Vidya

wati herself. This also created doubt about bona fides of

P.D. Gupta who seemed to be a family lawyer of vidya wati.

2. P.D. Gupta knew that the property purchased by him

from Vidya wati was subject matter of litigation and

title of vidya wati to that property was in doubt.

3. Hupe property situated in Daryaganj Ganj was purchased

by P.D. Gupta for a mere sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- in 1982.

4. The agreement for sale of property was entered into as

for back on September 3,1980 and P.D. Gupta had advancing

money Vidya Wati from time to time which went to show that

as per version of P.D. Gupta knew Vidya Wati so closely how

Vidya Wati could take contradictory stands vis-a-vis her

relationship with Srikishan Dass.

Bar Council of India was thus of view that conduct

of P.D. Gupta in circumstance s was unbecoming of

professional ethics and conduct.

Bar Council of India also observed :

" It is acknowledged fact that a

lawyer conducting the case of his

client has commanding status and

can expert influence of his client.

As a member of the Bar it is our

common knowledge that lawyers

have lawyers have started

contracting with the clients and

enter into baroains that in case

of success he will shore the

result. Number of instanses of

Motor Accident Claims. No doubt

there is no bar for instances to

purchase property but on account

of common prudence specially law

knowing person will never prefer to

purchase the property, the title of

which is under doubt."

Finally it said:

" But for the purpose of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

present complaint, having regard to

all the facts and circumstances of

the case, the committee is of the

opinion that the conduct of the

respondent is patently unbecoming

of a lawyer and against

professional ethics. Consequently,

we feel that as an exemplary

punishment, Shri P.D. Gupta

should be suspended form practice

for a period of one year so that

other erring lawyers should learn

a lesson and refrain themselves

form indulging in such practice."

The question which rises for consideration is:

In view of the aforementioned facts is P.D. Gupta

guilty of professional or other misconduct and if so is the

punishment awarded to him disproportionate to the

professional or other misconduct of which he has been

found guilty?

Mr. Y.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant P.D. Gupta submitted that if in a case like

this it held that a lawyer was guilty of professional

misconduct particularly on complaint filed by an interested

person like Ram Murti no lawyer would be able to conduct

henceforth the case of his client fearlessly. Mr. jain

said that the aggrieved person. if any, in this case would

have been either Vidya Wati. Her daughter maya Devi or her

grand-son Anand Prakash Bansal and neither of them had

complained. it was also submitted that though the

property was purchased by P.D. Gupta in late 1982 the

complaint by Ram Murti was filed only on December 16 ,1922

Mr. Jain explained that as to how Vidya Wati had been

varyingly described in various litigations was on account of

instruction form her or her Attorney and it was no fault of

P.D. Gupta on that account. Then it was submitted that no

specific charges had been framed in the disciplinary

proceedings which had caused prejudice to P.D. Gupta in the

conduct of his defence. lastly, it was contended that

P.D. Gupta was no longer concerned with the property as

he had sold away the same.

There appears to be no substance in the substance of

mr. Jain. P.D. Gupta was fully aware of the allegations

he was to meet . It was not a complicated charge. He has

been sufficiently long in practice. The arguments that a

charge had not been formulated appears to be more out of

the discontentment of P.D. Gupta in being unable to meet

the allegation . Now, P.D. Gupta says that he has washed

off his hands of the property and thus he is not guilty of

any misconduct. That is not the issue. It is his conduct

in buying the property, the subject matter of litigation

between the parties, from his client on which he could

exercise undue influence especially when there was a doubt

cast on his client's title to the property. Had P.D. Gupta

sold the property back to Vidya Wati and got the sale deed

in his favour cancelled something could have been said in

his favour. But that is not so. He sold the property to a

third person, made property to a third person, made profit

and created more complications in the pending suit. P.D.

Gupta purchased the properties which were subject matter

of dispute for himself and also for his son-in-law at

almost throw away prices and thus he himself became a party

to the litigation . conduct of P.D. Gupta cannot be said

to be above board. It is not material that Vidya Wati or

anyone claiming through her has not complained against him.

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

We are concerned with the professional conduct of P.D.

Gupta as a lawyer conducting the case for his client. a

lawyer owes duty to be fair not only to his client but to

the court as well as to the opposite party in the conduct of

the case. Administration of Justice is stream which has to

be dept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted.

Administration of Justice is not something which concerns

the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well, Bar is the

principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be

able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. While

conducting the case he functions as officer of the court.

Here, P.D. Gupta in buying the property as in effect

subverted the process of justice. His action has raised

serious questions about his fairness in the conduct of the

trial touching his professional conduct of the trial

touching his professional conduct as an advocate. By his

action he has brought the process of administration of

justice in disrepute.

Bar council of India and state Bar councils are

statutory bodies under the Act. These bodies performs

varying functions under the Act and the rules framed their

under. Bar council of India has laid standards of

professional conduct for the members. code of conduct in

the circumstances can never be exhaustive. Bar council of

India and state Bar councils are representative bodies of

the Advocates on their rolls and are charged with

responsibility of maintaining discipline amongst members

and punish those who go astray from the path of rectitude

set out for them. In the present case the Bar council of

India, through its disciolinary committee, has considered

all the relevant circumstances and has come to the

conclusion that P.D. Gupta, advocate is guilty of

misconduct and we see no reason to take a different view.

We also find no ground to interfere with the punishment

awarded to P.D. Gupta in the circumstances of the case.

The charge of professional or other misconduct by an

advocate is a serious matter and has to be considered and

disposed of by the Disciplinary committee of a state Bar

council expeditiously and with in period of one year. We

are unable to comprehend as to why the Disciplinary

Committee of the Delhi Bar council could not dispose of the

matter within the prescribed time frame and it was left

the apex body to deal with it.

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.