# CorPcration of Calcutta v. Mule hand Agarwal/a Venkatarama

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1006
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-10-13
- **Case number:** Civil Application No. 1506 of 1955
- **Bench:** B. K. MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, Venkatarama Ayyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/corpcration-of-calcutta-v-mule-hand-agarwal-a-venkatarama-1226
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Bar Councils Act-Misconduct in capacity other than professional
-Jurisdiction of Court-Bar
Councils
Act (XXXVIII of 1926),
s. JO-Supreme Court Rules, Order IV, Rule 30.
Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act confers on the Court juris~
diction to take disciplinary_ action against an Advocate not merely
for professional misconduct but any other misconduct committed in
any other capacity as well and leaves it to the Court's discretion to
t2ke such action as it thinks fit in any suitable case.
<
The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates ([1934]
I.LR. 59 Born. 57), In the matter of an Advocate ([1936] I.L.R. 63
Cal. 867) and In re a Pleader (I.L.R. [1943] Mad. 595), referred to.
In re Thomas fames Wallace ([1866] L.R. I P.C. 283), and In
re an Advocate of Benares (A.LR. [1932] All. 492), held inapplicable.
Consequently, in a case where an Advocate figuring as an accused in a case under the Bombay Prohibiti9n
Act was persistently
rud!! to and contemptuous of the trial Magistrate and did all in his
po\ver to hold up the trial and bring the administration of justice
into
contempt,
he
~'<ls guilty of misconduct
and as such was
liable to be suspended from practice.
D in person
M.
C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, as
amicus curiae.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1007
1955.
November
23.
The
Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
DAs J.-This Rule was issued by this Court under
Order IV, rule 30 of the Rules
of this Court after
receipt of a report from the Bombay High Court that
that High Court had, by its order made on the 13th
October 1955 in Civil Application No. 1506 of 1955,
suspended the respondent from practice as an Advocate of that High Court for a period of one year from
th~ date of the said order. By the rule the respondent has been required to show cause why, in view of
the matter specified in the judgment and order of the
Bombay
High Court referred to above,
appropriate
action, disciplinary or otherwise, should not be taken
against him by this Court.
The respondent is an Advocate of some standing
in the
Bombay High Court and as such was also
enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. It appears that
in the earlier part of the year 1953 the Advocate was
prosecuted before
Mr. Sonavane, one
of the Presidency Magistrates at Bombay, on a charge of having
committed an offence under
the
Bombay Prohibition
Act. The trial lasted from July
1953 to November
1953. On the 18th November 1953 the Magistrate convicted the Advocate of the offence with which he was
charged and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment
for one month and to a fine of Rs. 201 and to rigorous
imprisonment of four weeks in default of payment of
the fine. The Advocate went up on appeal to the
High Court. The High Court on the 24th February
1954
upheld the conviction but altered
the
sentence
to one of fine of Rs. 1,000 only.
In the meantime, on the 25th November 1953, the
trial Magistt:ate,
Mr. Sonavane,
made a report to the
Registrar (Appellate Side) of the Bombay High Court
as to the conduct of the Advocate · who appeared in
person as the accused before him. On a perusal of that
report the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the
Bombay
High Court constituted a Tribunal consisting of three
members of the Bar Council to enquire into the conduct of . the Advocate. The Tribunal issued a summons
1955
In the mslur of
D an Atlvocau of
the Supreme Courl
1955
In th~ mattl of
D an Advocate of
tM Suprem1 Court
Das].
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
against the Advocate intimating that it would enquire
into his conduct as disclosed in :-
(a) the report · dated the 25th November 1953 of
Shri T.
A.
Sonavane,
B.A.,
LL.B.,
Presidency
Magistrate,
18th
Court,
Girgaum,
Bombay, to
the
Registrar,
High
Court,
Appellate
Side,
Bombay,
'egarding Case No. 593/P of 1953
tried by him, and
(b) the judgment recorded by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of
1953 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 1953) upholding the
judgment and order of conviction
passed
against him

## Text

1955
CorPcration of
Calcutta
v.
Mule hand
Agarwal/a
Venkatarama
Ayyar J.
1955
November 23.
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
were it not that the appellant desired that the decision of this Court should be obtained on certain questions of importance, and
that purpose has
been
achieved. On a consideration of all the circumstances,
we do not think that this is a fit case in which we
should pass an order for demolition. We should, however, add that we find no justification for the strictures passed on the appellant by the court below.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE MATTER OF
D AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT. •
[B. K. MuKHERJEA, C. J., S. R. DAs and
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.)
Bar Councils Act-Misconduct in capacity other than professional
-Jurisdiction of Court-Bar
Councils
Act (XXXVIII of 1926),
s. JO-Supreme Court Rules, Order IV, Rule 30.
Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act confers on the Court juris~
diction to take disciplinary_ action against an Advocate not merely
for professional misconduct but any other misconduct committed in
any other capacity as well and leaves it to the Court's discretion to
t2ke such action as it thinks fit in any suitable case.
<
The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates ([1934]
I.LR. 59 Born. 57), In the matter of an Advocate ([1936] I.L.R. 63
Cal. 867) and In re a Pleader (I.L.R. [1943] Mad. 595), referred to.
In re Thomas fames Wallace ([1866] L.R. I P.C. 283), and In
re an Advocate of Benares (A.LR. [1932] All. 492), held inapplicable.
Consequently, in a case where an Advocate figuring as an accused in a case under the Bombay Prohibiti9n
Act was persistently
rud!! to and contemptuous of the trial Magistrate and did all in his
po\ver to hold up the trial and bring the administration of justice
into
contempt,
he
~'<ls guilty of misconduct
and as such was
liable to be suspended from practice.
D in person
M.
C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, as
amicus curiae.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1007
1955.
November
23.
The
Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
DAs J.-This Rule was issued by this Court under
Order IV, rule 30 of the Rules
of this Court after
receipt of a report from the Bombay High Court that
that High Court had, by its order made on the 13th
October 1955 in Civil Application No. 1506 of 1955,
suspended the respondent from practice as an Advocate of that High Court for a period of one year from
th~ date of the said order. By the rule the respondent has been required to show cause why, in view of
the matter specified in the judgment and order of the
Bombay
High Court referred to above,
appropriate
action, disciplinary or otherwise, should not be taken
against him by this Court.
The respondent is an Advocate of some standing
in the
Bombay High Court and as such was also
enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. It appears that
in the earlier part of the year 1953 the Advocate was
prosecuted before
Mr. Sonavane, one
of the Presidency Magistrates at Bombay, on a charge of having
committed an offence under
the
Bombay Prohibition
Act. The trial lasted from July
1953 to November
1953. On the 18th November 1953 the Magistrate convicted the Advocate of the offence with which he was
charged and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment
for one month and to a fine of Rs. 201 and to rigorous
imprisonment of four weeks in default of payment of
the fine. The Advocate went up on appeal to the
High Court. The High Court on the 24th February
1954
upheld the conviction but altered
the
sentence
to one of fine of Rs. 1,000 only.
In the meantime, on the 25th November 1953, the
trial Magistt:ate,
Mr. Sonavane,
made a report to the
Registrar (Appellate Side) of the Bombay High Court
as to the conduct of the Advocate · who appeared in
person as the accused before him. On a perusal of that
report the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the
Bombay
High Court constituted a Tribunal consisting of three
members of the Bar Council to enquire into the conduct of . the Advocate. The Tribunal issued a summons
1955
In the mslur of
D an Atlvocau of
the Supreme Courl
1955
In th~ mattl of
D an Advocate of
tM Suprem1 Court
Das].
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
against the Advocate intimating that it would enquire
into his conduct as disclosed in :-
(a) the report · dated the 25th November 1953 of
Shri T.
A.
Sonavane,
B.A.,
LL.B.,
Presidency
Magistrate,
18th
Court,
Girgaum,
Bombay, to
the
Registrar,
High
Court,
Appellate
Side,
Bombay,
'egarding Case No. 593/P of 1953
tried by him, and
(b) the judgment recorded by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of
1953 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 1953) upholding the
judgment and order of conviction
passed
against him by the aforesaid learned Magistrate in
the aforesaid case.
The proceedings appear to have been somewhat
protracted by reason of frequent objections made and
petitions filed by the respondent but eventually on or
about the 16th March
1955 the respondent forwarded
to the Secretary to the Bar Council Tribunal a copy
of a letter addressed by him to the Registrar, High
Court, Bombay, and requested the Tribunal to send a
report to the High Court in terms of his pleading guilty
to the charges levelled against him. He concluded
the letter by expressing regret for having wasted the
time of the Tribunal. In his
letter to the Registrar,
the
respondent enclosed
a separate written
apology
unconditionally withdrawing his contention that the
proceedings
b~fore the Tribunal were misconceived in
law and admitting that the High Court had full authority in law to refer the matter to the Bar Council
Tribunal and further that the statements made by Mr.
Sona vane in his report were true except in two respects
therein specified. On the 28th March 1955 the respondent submitted
an additional
statem~nt clarifying
and supplementing his
previous. apology. Thereupon
the Tribunal made a report to the High Court. By
this report the Tribunal held, on the respondent's own
admission, the
alfegations in the report of Mr. Sonavane
to be
proved
and recommended
that a very
serious
notice
should be taken
of the
respondent's
conduct. As regards the .second item in the summons
the Tribunal held that the mere conviction of the
resvondent under the Prohibition Act did not amount
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1009
to professional or other misconduct under section
10
of the Indian Bar Councils Act and, therefore, found
him not guilty of that charge.
0'1 a perusal of that report the High Court issued
notice
to
the respondent for final
hearing of
the
matter. The matter came up for final disposal before a
Bench consisting of the
Chief Justice and Tendolkar,
J. on the 13th October 1955. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
offered an unconditional
and
unqualified apology on behalf of the respondent' and
pleaded that the ends of justice would be met if the
Court only administered a warning to the
respondent.
After considering the report of the Tribunal the High
Comt took the view that the misconduct of the respondent was so serious and so grave that a deterrent punishment must be
imposed on him.
Accordingly, taking
everything into consideration, the
High
Court suspenaed the respondent from practice for a
period of one year from the date of that order. The
respondent's application for a certificate of fitness
for
appeal to this Court having been refused, the respondent filed a petition for special leave to appeal before
u';. That petition has, however, been dismissed by
us. The rule for disciplinary action now remains to
he dealt with.
In answer to the rule the respondent has filed a
petition
by way
of showing cause.
Paragraph 7 of
that petition runs as follows :-
"7. That the report of the learned Presidency
Magistrate,
18th
Court,
is
a highly
exaggerated,
garbled and manifestly incorrect version of the incidents that occurred during the trial of the case. And
looking
to the circumstances under which the petitioner was more or less compelled to tender a humiliating apology, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct
that a proper inquiry be held in the matter by or under
the directions of this Hon'ble Court".
Appearing in person before us the respondent has
contended with a certain amount of vehemence that
he had not had any fair deal before the Tribunal, that
the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enter upon the
enquiry inasmuch
as
the
misconduct complained
of
1955
111 lht matl1r of
D an Advocate of
th1 Suprem1 Court
Das].
1955
In the mr.tte, ~,r
D an Advocate of
lht Suprvnt r:ourl
Das].
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
\;;as
not committed by
him in his .capacity as
an
Advocate,
for he appeared in person
as the accused
in the Prohibition case, that the Tribunal had at one
stage held that it had no jurisdiction but had without
giY;ng him a hearing gone back on that decision and
<kclineJ to decide that question in his presence, that
the Tribunal failed to formulate any formal charge,
that he made an application to the High Court under
article 227
for quashing the proceedings for want of
jurisdiction
but the High Court had
rejected
that
application and dccllned to give him a certificate of
fitness
for
appeal to this
Court and pointed nut
various other matters which he characterised a' . :wwing prejudice and bias on the part of the Tribun ::.
It was pointed out to the respondent that iiis application for special leave to appeal from the judgment
and order of the High Court having been dismissed
we were not, in this Rule, concerned with the proceed•ngs iJi the Bombay High Court or before the
Tribunal of the Bar Council as observed by this Court
in
In the matter of Mr. G, a Senior Advocate Qf the
Supr.:me Court( 1 ). The respondent then fell back upon parograph 7 of
his
petition quoted above
and
asked
this Court to hold
a fresh
enquiry into the
matter. From the judgment of the Bombay High
Court which is referred to in the Rule issued herein
it
appears
that the
respondent had
admitted
the
truth of everything contained
in Mr. Sonavane's report except two matters only.
In his present petition
showing cause he does not, apart from a vague allegation that the report is an exaggerated, garbled and
manifestly
incorrect
version
of
the
incidents
that
occurred during the trial of the case, refer to any
particular
statement
therein which
is
exaggerated,
garbled
or incorect.
In view
of
his unconditional
admission of the truth of the statements in the report
of Mr. Sonavane we are not prepared to permit him
to go back on the same on such vague allegations as
are to be found in paragraph 7 of his petition. It is
needless for us to emphasise that a person holding the
responsible position of an Advocate of a High Court
(1) [1955] l $.C.R. 490, 495.
t
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1011
and of this Court cannot
be permitted
to play with
the Court in the way this Advocate has done. He
admitted the correctness of the report, confessed his
guilt and tendered an unconditional apology
evidently
in the hope that he would get away with it by merely
tendering an apology.
Finding that the
tactics
did
not work with the High Court as he expected the same
to do, he now wants to change his tactics by asking
for an enquiry which he had himself avoided by means
of his admission and apology. This we are not prepared to permit him to do. We have carefully gone
through the report of Mr. Sonavane and we find ourselves in entire agreement with the High Court when
it says that that report makes an extremely sad reading. The conduct of the respondent in the criminal
trial was, as pointed out by the High Court, entirely
indefensible
by
any
standard.
It
discloses
a continuous and . persistent attempt on the part of the
respondent to be rude to and contemptuous of the
Magistrate, to hold up the trial and to do everything
in his power
to bring the administration of justice into contempt. Such a conduct, in our opinion, merits
severe condemnation.
The respondent has drawn our attention to the case
of In re Thomas fames Wallace(1 ) which was followed
in In re An Advocate of Benares( 2). We do not conceive that the Privy Council intended to lay down any
fixed and rigid rule of law or did anything more than
indicate the course which, in the circumstances of
that case, it considered to be
reasonable, satisfactory
and convenient a1id the Allahabad case simply followed the same. As has been held by a Full Bench
of the Bombay High Court in The Advocate-General of
Bombay v. Three Advocates(3), the Indian Legislature
by using the words "professional or other misconduct" in section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act
intended to confer on the Court disciplinary
jurisdiction to take action in all cases of misconduct whether
in a professional or other capacity .leaving it to the
discretion of Court to take action only in suitable
(l) [1866] L.R. l.P.C. 283.
(2) A.I.R. 1932 All. 492.
(3) [1934] I.L.R. 59 Bom. 57.
19~5
In 1111 ina111r •f
D an Adoocal1 of
.1h1 Supreme Court
Das].
1955
In the matter nf
D an Advoeate of
the Supreme Court
Das].
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
cases. To the like effect is the decision of a Special
Bench of the Calcutta High Court in In the matter of
an Advocate('). The pleader concerned in the case of
In re a Pleader( 2)
was certainly not, by shouting slogans in Court, functioning as an Advocate, nevertheless he was dealt with under section 13(f) of the Legal
Practitioners Act.
W a/lace's case (supra)
was
not a
decision on any statutory provision
such as we have
in the
Legal Practitioners Act or the
Bar Councils
Act.
For the reasons stated above and in view of the
conduct of the Advocate seen in the light of the surrounding circumstances we are clearly of opinion that
the Advocate should, by reason of his having indulged
in conduct unworthy of a member of the
honourable
profession to which he belongs, be suspended from
practice for some
time. He is
an Advocate of this
Court and according to a majority decision of this
Court he is entitled, under the Supreme Court Advocates (Practice in High Courts) Act, to exercise his
profession in all Courts throughout the Union of India.
Any suspension for a period less than the period fixed
by the Bombay High Court will obviously
lead to
serious anomaly and inconvenience.
We accordingly
direct that the Advocate concerned be suspended from
practice for a period co-terminous with the period of
s.uspension fixed by the Bombay High Court, namely,
up to the 13th October, 1956.
(l) [1936] I.L.R. 63 Cal. 867.
(2) I.L.R. [1943] Mad. 459.