V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan And Ors

 

Vande Matram! Here a case regarding the professional misconduct of an advocate is discussed.

V. C. Rangadurai vs D. Gopalan And Ors

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 281, 1979 SCR (1)1054

Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.

Petitioner: V. C. Rangadurai

-Vs-

Respondent: D. Gopalan and others

Act: Advocates Act, 1961, Article 19 of Constitution of India.

Facts of the case:

1) Appellant is a middle-aged man and has grossly misconducted himself and deceived a common client. He had been suspended from practice for one year.

2) The appellant had duped the respondents who are an old-aged couple. Appellant had not filed the suits on two promissory notes of respondents which were executed by their land-lady who had borrowed money from them, by deposit of title deeds.

3) A plaint for recovery of the amount due on one promissory note with interest was returned for presentation to proper court along with the required court fee, but it was never represented. Again plaint for recovery of the amount of second promissory note was drafted by the appellant but no such suit was filed. Further appellant made a false representation to respondents that the suits had been filed and gave them the various dates fixed in those suits, and later on, falsely told them that the court had passed decrees based on the two promissory notes.

4) On the faith of such representation the complainants served a lawyer's notice to their land-lady and called upon the debtor to pay the amount due under the decrees.

5) In denial of the charge the appellant pleaded that in past the debtor landlady was his client so he advised the respondents to engage some other counsel and told them that he had handed over the matter to another advocate. The other advocate pleaded that he signed Vakalatnama as junior, he never met the respondents, he had not been instructed to file the suits. Respondents issued the notice to both the advocates.

6) Observations of Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council: In the said matter that other advocate who signed the Vakalatnama had become a witness. As per the disciplinary committee,

a) There was no reason to reject the evidence of the junior advocate.

b) Appellant who is a senior advocate tried to throw up his client.

c) The record does not establish that respondents were introduced to junior advocate by the appellant and then he was accepted as counsel in charge of the case.

d) Appellant miserably failed in his duties towards his fellow advocate very much junior to him.

Observations of Supreme Court:

1) It is not per professional etiquette for one advocate to hand over his brief to another to take his place at a hearing (either for the whole or part of the hearing), and conduct the case as if the latter had himself been briefed unless the client consents to this course being taken.

2) A lawyer when entrusted with a brief, is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his clients, with whom he occupies a position of trust. The appellant completely betrayed the trust reposed in him by the respondents.

Punishment:

1) State Disciplinary Committee: suspended him from practice for six years.

2) Disciplinary Committee: taken a lenient view and reduced the period of suspension from six years to one year.

3) As per Supreme Court: Opined that taking too lenient a view, in this case, would not be conducive to the disciplinary control of the State Bar Councils. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the punishment imposed on the appellant.

To know the references and to read more articles related to Professional ethics and professional accounting system, please visit this page Legal Profession: Professional Ethics and Professional accounting system.

Thanks for reading till the end. Please share this with all legal professionals.