ijalr

Trending: Call for Papers Volume 3 | Issue 2: International Journal of Advanced Legal Research [ISSN: 2582-7340]

Case Comment on D.S. Dalal v. SBI

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 1982

DECIDED ON- 18.03.1982

CITATION: 1993 AIR 1608, SCR (2) 488

 

APPELLANT- D.S. DALAL

V.

RESPONDENT- STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

HON’BLE JUDGE:

– KULDIP SINGH

– N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ

Professional Misconduct by Advocates in India: A Critical Analysis By:  Trishala Singh[1]

 HISTORY OF CASE:

1.      D.S. Dalal was a practicing Advocate in Delhi.

2.      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24, 1981, removed his name from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar council of Delhi & the sanad granted to him has been withdrawn.

3.      The Appeal under section 30 of the Advocates Act, against the order of the Bar Council of India.

4.      The State Bank of India lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi on September, 4, 1998.

5.      The complaint that the appellant along with two other advocates was practicing under the name & style of “Ms. Singh and company”[2]

6.      A firm of Advocates & Solicitors having their office at 2610 Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

7.      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, 16,410.[3]

8.      “SINGH &COMPANY” the firm at that time was represented by MR. D.S. Dalal, Ms. V. Singh & Mr. B. Singh, Advocates who were the partners of the said firm and ere conducting cases for & on behalf of the firm.[4]

9.      It is the case of the complaint that in the year, 1995. 

10.  The file relating to the case which was to be filed against Ms. Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd.

11.  The file relating to the case original & valuable documents was handed over to the firm by the compliant. The firm submitted the professional fees & other miscellaneous charges.

12.  An amount of Rs. 11,495 was paid to the firm on November 15.1995.

13.  Till December 19, 1995 the firm did not inform the bank as to whether the suit was filed and if so what was the stage of the proceedings.

14.  The bank wrote a letter on December 5 1995 to the firm asking it to send a copy of the paint before December, 8, 1995. For signature and verification filing which the bank would be compelled to withdraw the case from the firm.

15.  At that stage Mr. B. Singh, Advocate in his letter December, 15, 1995 informed the bank the suit had been filed on Dec, 15 in the high Court Of Delhi. Thereafter the bank appears to have received no communication from the said above despite repeated reminders.

16.  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 on behalf of the bank.

17.  Mr. Arora informed the bank that the suit which been filed on Dec, 15, 1995 was returned by the original branch, the registry of the High Court with objection & thereafter the suit has not re- filled in the registry of the High Court. [5]

 

FACTS:

1.      In 1995, the bank engaged the firm to rile on recovery suit for the amount of Rs. 6,12,16, 410 from M/S Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd & handed over the case- rile containing ordinal &valuable documents.

2.      The firm submitted a bill fir celling the recovery suit which included the professional fees & other miscellaneous charges.

3.      On 15.11.1995 the bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,475 which included 1/3rd of the professional fee and the miscellaneous charges.[6]

4.      It did not inform the bank whether the suit was filed or not.

5.      On 5.12.1995 the bank wrote a letter to the firm to send a copy of the plaint before 8.12.1995 or the bank would be compelled to withdrawn the case from the firm.

6.      On 15.12.1995, one of the partners of the firm informed the bank the suit was filed on 15.12.1995 in the High Court.

7.      The bank engaged the service of one Mr. Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what happened to the suit.

8.      On 2 March, 1999 at the bank was informed by Mr. Arora, Advocate that suit was filed on 15.12.1995 in the High Court and on 31.1.1996, it was returned by the original branch to the registry with objections. Mr. Arora, Advocate further informed the bank on 31.3.1997 that the entire suit paper book was returned to Mr. Singh, Advocate of the firm on 29.9.1996 for removing the objections & thereafter the suit was not refilled. [7]

9.      The respondent bank thereafter, claimed before the Bar Council of Delhi that appellant & his associates misappropriated the money paid to them for court fee, miscellaneous expenses & one-third of the professional fee.

10.  The complainant further stated that, even the documents & other papers handed over to the appellant & his associates for filing the suit were not returned the complainant was originally registered with the Bar Council of Delhi .

11.  On September 19. 1999 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.

12.  The Bar Council of India issues notices returnable on 2.11.1980. the appellant & his associates were not present on that date. Therefore fresh notices were issued for 20.12.1980, the appellant did not present on 20.12.1980 & ex-parte proceedings were ordered.

13.  On 23.1.1981 the appellant moved on appreciation for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 20.12.1980 which was allowed & the case was adjourned to 29.2.1981.

14.  The case was adjourned from time to time & finally fixed for evidence on 22.8.1981 on 22.8.1981, the appellant application for adjournment was rejected the evidence was concluded, arguments were heard & the order was reserved.

15.  The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that the case against the appellant & his associates was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi & the sanands granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn.

INITIAL OF CASE:

1.      Initially the case was before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

2.      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.

FINDING:

1.      Mr. R.P. Arora appeared as a witness before the Bar Council of India.

2.      Mr. R.P. Arora examined the records of Delhi High Court.

3.      Mr. R.P. Arora. Advocates, after examining the records of the Delhi High Court had send two reports to the State Bank of India.

4.      In this report dates March 2, 1999 he stated as under:-

i)                    “As desired by you, to know the where about of the above noted case, I contacted the concern clerk in the original Branch of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi & also inspected the register of the original suits.

ii)                  The above noted case was filed by M/S Singh & Company on 15.12.195 but there were certain objections by the original branch & on 31.1.1996 the said case file as returned to the registree by the original branch.

iii)                The register of the registree in respect of the period from 31.1.1996 is not available & I shall let you know the up to date information. When the said case was returned to M/S Singh & company within a short period.

5.       In this report dated March 31, 1999, Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate gave the following information to the bank.

i)                    ‘I have enquired from the original section of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, which the file of the above stated case was returned to Shri. B. Singh on 29.9.1996 as the said case was under objections. So far he has not again filed the said case in High Court.’

6.      Both the above quoted reports have been proved on the record of the Bar Council of India as evidence.

7.      The Bar Council of India on appreciation of the evidence before t came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant & Mr. B. Singh was proved beyond doubt.

DECISION OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

1.      After having gone through the evidence & the document produced in the case carefully. We have come to the conclusion that the complainant had entrusted to suit to be filed against M/S Delhi Flooring (pvt) Ltd.

2.      The necessary papers & Rs. 11,495 for expenses etc., to the respondent, Advocate.

3.      It is also established that the respondents have filed the suit on 15.12.1995 with some objections deliberately & when the papers were returned by the High Court.

4.      They had not refined the suit for a pretty long time is established tiff this day.

5.      So. We have no hesitation to conclude that the respondents have misappropriated that amount realized by them.

6.      The bank without filing the suit in a proper manner.

7.      The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held that the case against the appellant & his associates was proved beyond reasonable doubt, their names were removed from the rolls of Advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi & the sanad granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1.      Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no cost.

 

PRINCIPLE OF THE COURT

1.      Under section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

2.      It was the professional misconduct.

3.      The suit has not been refilled in the Registry of the High Courts of Delhi.

       AUTHORED BY: ARUNDHATI SINGH


[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=DS+DALAL+V.+SBI&sxsrf=ALeKk02AGj-qXLCM3GIK3C1YoVEgxqSwNA:1626328485773&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYpbrdseTxAhXezTgGHRfEDRYQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=46L_grWFX2v3zM

[2]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269 (last seen: 16/05/21)

[3]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269  (last seen: 16/05/21)

[4]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269 (last seen: 16/05/21)

[5]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269 (last seen: 16/05/21)

[6]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269 (last seen: 16/05/21)

[7]https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f269 (last seen: 16/05/21)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *