# Rohtas Industries lid v. Brijnat1dan Pandey S. K. Das}

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 811
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-01-26
- **Bench:** Jagannadhadas, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rohtas-industries-lid-v-brijnat1dan-pandey-s-k-das-1272
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Professional Misconduct-Appropriation by Advocate on record
of Surpfos Paper Book Cost towards fees-Legality-Standard of
professional conduct-Trustee-Lien-Procedure-Supreme Court
R1iles, 1950, (as amended), 0. IV, r .. 80.
Facts. Shri 'M', while an Agent of the Supreme Court, filed a.
criminal appeal and later on became an Advocate on record under
the. new rules of tl)e Court which came into force on January 26,
1954. He received a sum of Rs. 750 from his client for costs of
printing of the Paper Book and deposited the same in the Punjab
High Court from whose decision the appeal a.rose. There was 11 sur·
plus of Rs. ~J42-1-9 pies. He withdrew tbe amount without inform·
ing his client, made no demand of any fees a.s being due to him, did
not lodge any bill for taxation and appropriated the sum towards
his a.Ueged fses.
Tbe client came to know of the withdrawal from
_.
the Punjab High Court and when he confronted Shri 'M' with the
letter from that court Shri 'M', who had denied the receipt of the
surplus amount, could no longer do so and stated that he was en·
titled to a reasonable fee, had a lien therefor a.nd had appropriated
the a.mount.
Held, that on the facts found the Advocate wa.s guilty of professional misconduct and must be suspended from practice.
The high standard of professional conduct contemplated by rule
30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules virtually made a.n Advoca.te a. trustee for his•client in respect of a.11 his moneys which
ca.me into his .hands except what was specifically ear-marked for
fees.
Any lien which he might have under the .rules would not
justify the appropriation of any such money towards his fees without the express or implied consent of the client or an order of Court.
Nor could a.n Advocate, in absence of a. prior settlement of fees,
constitute himself a judge in his own ca.use a.nd determine what
1956
Rohtas Industries
lid.
v.
Brijnat1dan
Pandey
S. K. Das}.
1956
October 17.
1956
Jn re: Shri 'M', an
Ad'C10cate of th~
Supreme Court of
India
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
would be reasonable fees payable to him. It might be that in certain
circumstances he was entitled to exercise a. lien, but he had to give
reasonoble intimation both of the fact of moneys having come into
his hands and of the exercise of his lien over them until his account
was settled.
The principle of trusteeship applied with greater force where
the surplus money1 as in the instant ca.se, was meant for a. specific
purpose, it being well settled that in respect• of such a money there
could be no lien either under the common law or the statute.
That in a case such as the present, the standard applicable to
an Agent under rules 31 and 32 of the old rules would be ·the same.
In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court,
([1955) 1 S.C.R. 490), followed.
Held further, that as the Supreme Court Rules did not specifica~ly prescribe any procedure for oases coming under r. 30 of 0. IV
of the Rules, in the instant case the procedure substantially as in a
warrant case under s. 251-A (as amended) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be adopted as far as possible subject to such just
and expedient modifications as accorded with the rules of natural
justice.
'DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION.
In the matter of summons under Order 4, Rule
30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended).
Purshottam Tricumdas, B. B. Tawakley, G. G.
Mathur and K. P. Gupta, for the Advocate.
M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and
B. Sen Assisting the Court.
1956. October 17.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS J.-These proceedings before us
arise out of a summons under Order IV, rule 30 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1950, (as amended) issued to
Shri 'M', who was originally an Agent of this Court
and became an "Advocate on recQrd" under the new
rules of this Court which came into force on January
26, 1954. The summons issued calls upon him to show
cause why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him. I

## Text

_Characters 0–39,877 of 60,230. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39877 for what follows._

--
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Sll
which that Tribunal should have passed in this case,
namely, that permission be granted to the appellant
to discharge ninety six temporary workmen. In the
circumstances of this case, we think that the parties
must bear their own costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
IN RE: SHRI 'M', AN ADVOCATE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
[JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and
B. P. SINHA, JJ.]
Professional Misconduct-Appropriation by Advocate on record
of Surpfos Paper Book Cost towards fees-Legality-Standard of
professional conduct-Trustee-Lien-Procedure-Supreme Court
R1iles, 1950, (as amended), 0. IV, r .. 80.
Facts. Shri 'M', while an Agent of the Supreme Court, filed a.
criminal appeal and later on became an Advocate on record under
the. new rules of tl)e Court which came into force on January 26,
1954. He received a sum of Rs. 750 from his client for costs of
printing of the Paper Book and deposited the same in the Punjab
High Court from whose decision the appeal a.rose. There was 11 sur·
plus of Rs. ~J42-1-9 pies. He withdrew tbe amount without inform·
ing his client, made no demand of any fees a.s being due to him, did
not lodge any bill for taxation and appropriated the sum towards
his a.Ueged fses.
Tbe client came to know of the withdrawal from
_.
the Punjab High Court and when he confronted Shri 'M' with the
letter from that court Shri 'M', who had denied the receipt of the
surplus amount, could no longer do so and stated that he was en·
titled to a reasonable fee, had a lien therefor a.nd had appropriated
the a.mount.
Held, that on the facts found the Advocate wa.s guilty of professional misconduct and must be suspended from practice.
The high standard of professional conduct contemplated by rule
30 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules virtually made a.n Advoca.te a. trustee for his•client in respect of a.11 his moneys which
ca.me into his .hands except what was specifically ear-marked for
fees.
Any lien which he might have under the .rules would not
justify the appropriation of any such money towards his fees without the express or implied consent of the client or an order of Court.
Nor could a.n Advocate, in absence of a. prior settlement of fees,
constitute himself a judge in his own ca.use a.nd determine what
1956
Rohtas Industries
lid.
v.
Brijnat1dan
Pandey
S. K. Das}.
1956
October 17.
1956
Jn re: Shri 'M', an
Ad'C10cate of th~
Supreme Court of
India
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
would be reasonable fees payable to him. It might be that in certain
circumstances he was entitled to exercise a. lien, but he had to give
reasonoble intimation both of the fact of moneys having come into
his hands and of the exercise of his lien over them until his account
was settled.
The principle of trusteeship applied with greater force where
the surplus money1 as in the instant ca.se, was meant for a. specific
purpose, it being well settled that in respect• of such a money there
could be no lien either under the common law or the statute.
That in a case such as the present, the standard applicable to
an Agent under rules 31 and 32 of the old rules would be ·the same.
In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court,
([1955) 1 S.C.R. 490), followed.
Held further, that as the Supreme Court Rules did not specifica~ly prescribe any procedure for oases coming under r. 30 of 0. IV
of the Rules, in the instant case the procedure substantially as in a
warrant case under s. 251-A (as amended) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be adopted as far as possible subject to such just
and expedient modifications as accorded with the rules of natural
justice.
'DISCIPLINARY JURISDICTION.
In the matter of summons under Order 4, Rule
30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended).
Purshottam Tricumdas, B. B. Tawakley, G. G.
Mathur and K. P. Gupta, for the Advocate.
M. G. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and
B. Sen Assisting the Court.
1956. October 17.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
JAGANNADHADAS J.-These proceedings before us
arise out of a summons under Order IV, rule 30 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1950, (as amended) issued to
Shri 'M', who was originally an Agent of this Court
and became an "Advocate on recQrd" under the new
rules of this Court which came into force on January
26, 1954. The summons issued calls upon him to show
cause why disciplinary action should not be taken
against him. It arises on a complaint against him
made to the Registrar of this Court by one Attar
Singh on December 5, 1955.
The substance of that
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
813
7956
complaint is as follows.
The complainant was the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1950 in this In t'e: Shri 'M', an
Court. Shri 'M' acted for him in connection with the
Adtocate of the
appeal. A sum of Rs. 750 was supplied to Shri 'M' supreme court of
for the printing charges therein. This sum was deIndia
posited in due course in the Punjab High Court from
-
whose judgment the appeal arose. There remained an JagannadhadasJ.
unspent balance of Rs. 242-1-9 out of it. Shri 'M'
withdrew that money from the High Court without
the authority and the knowledge of the complainant.
When, later on, the complainant became aware of it,
he demanded refund of the same. Shri 'M' first denied
receipt of the money, and thereafter refused to refund it (claiming, as appears later in the evidence, to
have appropriated it towards the balance of fees said
to be due to him). This complaint was in the usual
course put up before his Lordship the Chief Justice
who directed the Chamber-Judge, our learned brother,
Bhagwati, J., to enquire into it. Notices were issued
thereupon both to Shri 'M' and the complainant as
well as to three other Advocates of this Court who
happened to be associated with that appeal. The enquiry before the learned Judge was fairly elaborate.
Thereat, certain conclusions were reached on the
basis of which charges were framed against Shri 'M'.
The present summons to Shri 'M' is with reference to
those charges and this Bench has been constituted as
a Special Bench under Order IV, rule 30 of the
Supreme Court Rules to deal with this matter. The
learned Attorney-General has appeared, on notice, to
assist the Court.
The rules of this Court do not provide for the
procedure to be adopted in such cases;except to say
that "the Court shall issue, in the first instance, a
summons returnable before the Court or before a
Special Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice
to show cause against specified matters". There have
been no precedents of this Court so far, to indicate
the exact procedure to be adopted. The only previous
case of professional misconduct on summons under
Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules which
this Court had occasion to deal with, was that reported
106
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
in In the matter of Mr. '0', a Senior Advocate of the
i
·Sh . 'M'
Supreme Court('). But that was a case in which ac-
,. ;;~oc;;, of ;h:" tion had been duly taken against the Advocate by the
supreme Court of Bombay High Court in connection with alleged mis-
. India
conduct arising within its jurisdiction. The summons
issued to the Advocate by this Court was with referJagannadhadasJ. ence to the same matter but as regards his position
as a Supreme Court Advocate. (We understand that
there were also two such cases in the Federal Court).
In the normal course, and in view of the rather
elaborate enquiry which was held by our learned
brother, Bhagwati J., we should have been content
to confine ourselves to a mere hearing of arguments
on the materia.l recorded in that enquiry and come to
our own conclusions with reference to the charges set
out in the summons. But at the outset, objection was
taken to our adopting such a course. The validity of
the summons was questioned. It was said that under
Order IV, rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, the
enquiry was to follow a summons which is contemplated as the first step therein. It was also said that
the enquiry having been in Chambers, the statements
of witneBBes were not on oath. The learned AttorneyGeneral was also inclined to think that there was
force in the objections raised. After discussion in
court with the Advocates on both sides we felt it desirable to refrain from any decision on the preliminary objection and to give the Agent complained
against, the opportunity of a fresh enquiry in open
Court on formulated chatges. We accordingly directed
by our orders dated May 9, 1956, and September 13,
1956, that evidence should be taken afresh before us
and that procedure, substantially as in .a warrant
case, should be adopted as far as possible under the
amended section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure
Code, subject to such modifications therein as may
appear to be just and expedient in the circumstances
of this case and without affecting the rules of natural
justice. We treated the enquiry in Chambers as a preliminary enquiry and heard arguments on both sides
with reference to the matter of that enquiry. We
(1) (1955] i s.c.R. 490.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
815
came to the conclusion that this was not a case for
7956
discharge at that sta00'e. We accordingly reframed the In re: Shri 'M', an
charges framed by our learned brother, Bhagwati J.,
Advocate of the
and added a fresh charge. No objection has been supreme Court of
taken to this course. But it is as well to mention that,
India
in our opinion, the terms of Order IV, rule 30 of the
-
Supreme Court Rules do not preclude us from adopt- JagannadhadasJ.
ing this course, including the reframing of, or adding
to, the charges specified in the original summons,
where the material at the preliminary enquiry justifies
the same. The fresh enquiry before us in Court has
proceeded with reference to the following charges as
reframed and added to by us.
"You, 'M', once an Agent of this Court and thereafter an Advocate on record of this Court, are guilty
of professional misconduct in that,
Firstly, you having deposited a sum of Rs. 750 in
the Punjab High Court towards the printing charges
of the appeal paper book in Supreme Court Appeal
No. 12 of 1950 on behalf of your client, Attar Singh,
and having the custody of the receipt issued by the
Punjab High Court in respect of the same, applied for
and obtained from the Punjab High Court without
the authority of your client Attar Singh the balance
of Rs. 242-1-9 in the month of March, 1952.
Secondly, that after obtaining the said sum of
Rs. 242-1-9 as above from the Punjab High Court you
retained that sum. with you and did not return any
part thereof to your client, Attar Singh, even though
he frequently called upon you to do so and even
though you are not entitled to recover from him by
way of your professional charges anything beyond a
-
sum of Rs 72-15-6 by reason of your having agreed
to receive a sum of only Rs. 100 towards your fee and
no more.
Thirdly, that you after receiving the sum of
Rs. 242-1-9 in March 1952, retained the said sum,
without any intimation to your client Attar Singh
and without claiming any amount as due from him by
_way of fees to you and without lodging a bill for taxation against him for a period of over three years".
1956
In re: Shri 'M', an
Advocate of the
Supreme Court of
India
J a gannatlhahs J.
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
rrn56J
The undisputed facts are as follows.
The complainant, Attar Singh, engaged a Senior Advocate of
this Court, Sardar RaghbirSingh, who associated with
himself Shri M. K. Madan as the Junior Advocate and
Shri 'M' as the Agent in the case.
Criminal Appeal
No. 12 of 1950 was filed by all these three gentlemen
with reference to a Vakalatnama executed by the
complainant, Attar Singh, in favour of the Agent,
Shri 'M'.
The complainant had to deposit a sum of
Rs. 750 in the Punjab High Court for the preparation
of the printed record in the appeal. Shri 'M' was entrusted with a bank draft for the said amount.
He
deposited it in the Punjab High Court. A receipt for
the amount was issued in Shri 'M's name.
The
printed record in the case was made ready and dispatched to the Supreme Court about the end of
December, 1951.
Thereafter Shri 'M' applied to the
High Court for refund of the unspent balance.
He
received from the High Court in March, 1952, the sum
of Rs. 242-1-9 as the unspent .balance. This amount
has not been paid to the complainant by Shri 'M'
who claims to have appropriated it towards fees said
to be due to him.
Now the case of the complainant is this. When he
filed the appeal he was impecunious as he had lost his
job by reason of his conviction. He approached
Sardar Raghbir Singh, Senior Advocate, through a
relation of his and requested him to arrange for the
conduct of the appeal on his behalf and to accllpt
therefor a fee of Rs. 600 aqd no more, for himself, a
Junior Advocate to assist him as well as for an Agent
to be in charge, all taken together. It is the complainant's case that Sardar Raghbir Singh agreed to the
same and was paid the said amount of Rs. 600 at the
very outset, i.e., a few days before the actual filing of
the appeal memorandum into this Court and that he
(the complainant) was not directly concerned with
the fixing up of the Junior Advocate and of the
Agent or with the internal distribution of the said
sum of Rs. 600 as between the three persons. His case
accordingly is that Shri 'M' was not entitled to any
further amount by way of fees and that he unautho-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
817
risedly withdrew the amount and appropriated it
1956
towards alleged fees.
Attar Singh, the complainant,
h
b
d
f h
S d
In re: Shri 'M', an
as een examine
in support o
is case.
ar ar
Advocate of the
Raghbir Singh and Shri Madan have also been exasupreme Courl of
mined to substantiate it: The evidence of Sardar
India
Raghbir Singh is that he was approached by Attar
-
Singh through a common friend, that he was asked to JagannadhadasJ.
accept a consolidated fee of Rs. 600, that in consultation with a Junior Advocate, Shri Madan, whom he
knew well, he accepted the engagement, that Shri
Madan broughtin Shri 'M' as the Agent and that the
amount of Rs. 600 was paid to him by Attar Singh
and was shared by the three Rs. 300 for the Senior,
Rs. 200 for the Junior, and Rs. 100 for the Agent.
His evidence is that Shri 'M' was not known to him
previously but that he was fixed by Shri Madan, that
Shri Madan informed him about Shri 'M' hav,ing
agreed to accept the engagement for a fee of Rs. 100
without more and that in pursuance of this arrangement the said sum of Rs. 100 was paid over to Shri
'M' and Rs. 200 to Shri Madan. The Junior Advocate, Shri Madan, has been examined to substantiate
that it was he who fixed Shri 'M' as the Agent in the
case with the arrangement that the Agent should
charge only Rs. 100 as his fee. The evidence of these
three persons, Attar Singh, Sar<iar Raghbir Singh and
Shri Madan, is that all the above took place a few
days prior to th.e filing of the appeal into Court. The
appeal was admittedly filed on the 11th May, 1950.
Shri 'M' has offered himself as a witness on his own
behalf. He admitted that he was fixed up as an Agent
in the appeal through Shri Madan at the request of
Sardar Raghbir Singh, but he says that he is not
aware of any arrangement between the complainant
and Sardar Raghbir Singh or about the pμ,yment of
Rs. 600 by the complainant to Sardar Raghbir Singh
on the alleged arrangement. He says that, having
been taken as an Agent into the case by Sardar
Raghbir Singh on the recommendation of Shri Madan,
he was paid at the time of filing of the appeal only a
sum of Rs. 50 by Attar Singh himself as part payment of his fees and was promised that reasonable fee
1956
.{n re: Shri 'M', an
Advocate of the
Supreme Court of
India
JagannadhadasJ.
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
would be paid later on. He denies that there was any
understanding or arrangement that only a sum of
Rs. 100 was to be paid to him and also denies that
he was paid by Sardar Raghbir Singh the sum of
Rs. 100.
To substantiate that the alleged arrangement to accept only Rs. 100 could not be true, he
gives evidence that even the Junior, Shri Madan, sent
to him in August, 1952, a bill for Rs. 320 which he
says he passed on to Attar Singh and of which he
purports to produce a copy. But Shri Madan denies
that he ever sent such a bill and Attar Singh denies
that he received any such.
The controversy on this part of the case is covered
by charge number two.
The two material facts
which have to be determined are (1) whether the
Agent, Shri 'M', came into this case on a definite
arr!).ngement that his entire fee for the case was to be
Rs. 100, and (2) whether he was in fact paid the said
sum of Rs. 100 by Sardar Raghbir Singh at the
outset. The complainant, Attar Singh, is not by
himself a direct witness either to the arrangement or
to the fact of payment of Rs. 100.
The only material fact which he spoke to on this part of the case is
as to hlii arrangement with Sardar Raghbir Singh.
It was that he should fix up, a Junior Advocate and
an Agent of his own choice, and accept the sum of
Rs. 600 as fees for all the three of them together
without claiming anything more. He says also that
the said sum of Rs. 600 was paid by him to Sardar
Raghbir Singh at the very outset.
Sardar Raghbir
Singh admits the payment. There is no reason to
doubt that a sum of Rs. 600 was in fact paid by Attar
Singh to Sardar Raghbir Singh a few days before the
actual filing of the appeal in May, 1950; though Shri
'M' denies knowledge of it. On the evidence as given
before us, Shri Madan is the only direct witness to
the arrangement with Shri 'M' that a sum of Rs. 100
is to be paid to him and that he should claim nothing
more for the conduct of the entire case. The arrangement itself was not made in the presence of Sardar
Raghbir Singh but it is Sardar Raghbir Singh's
evidence that he was informed about it by Shri Madan.
-
-
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
819
It is also Sardar Raghbir Singh's evidence that in
1956
pursuance thereof Shri 'M' was paid by him Rs. 100.
. , ,
Th
th
"d
.
Sh . M d
.
th
In re: Shri M, an
us on
e ev1 ence, as g1v:en,
ri
a an is
e
Advocate of the
direct witness for the arrangement and Sardar supreme courlof
Raghbir Singh is the direct witness for the payment
India
and each became aware of the other fact from the
conversations between them at the time and in the JagannadhadasJ.
course of events. The evidence of both these gentlemen has been commented upon and criticised by the
learned Advocate for Shri 'M'. It has been pointed
out that these two gentlemen had, in these proceedings, occasion to speak to the facts at three stages,
first in answer to letters of enquiry written to each of
them by the Registrar of this Court after the complaint was filed and Shri 'M' filed his answer thereto,
next when they were examined formally before the
learned Judge in Chambers, and now when they are
examined before us on oath. It is pointed out that
there are substantial variations and developments in
their versions. The explanation given by both of
them for the variations is that at the earlier stages
they did not desire to be more specific or categorical
since they were given to understand that the matter
would somehow be adjusted, that they did not want
to harm Shri 'M' and that the lines on which they
were to answer the enquiry from the Registrar, were
discussed in a conference between themselves and
Shri 'M' with his Advocates. Shri 'M' also admits
that there was such a conference. It is urged by the
learned Advocate appearing forShri 'M' that this very
explanation offered by these two gentlemen shows
that their word, even before us, is not to be taken at
its face value. It is also pointed out that neither of
the Advocates could produce any accounts to substantiate the payments alleged to have been made,
nor any record or note as to the amount of fee~ fixed
for each and the arrangement with Shri 'M' that has
been spoken to. On the other band, they admit that
they maintain no accounts at all. It does not.also
appear that they maintain any satisfactory diaries
or other record which might have corroborated
their evidence. The learned Attorney-General while
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
fairly conceding that there is good deal of room
for comment about the evidence of these two gentleIn re: Shri • M'. an
Adoocate of th• men, nrges that we should attach greater value to
supreme Court of their present evidence given on oath particularly·
India
in view of the fact that both of them admit the com-
-
plainant's story that Rs. 600 was all that was inJagannadhadasJ. tended to be paid for all the three together and they
categorically admit that they have themselves no further claim against the complainant for the work done
by them. The learned Attorney-General submits that
it is unreasonable to suppose that while both of them
accepted comparatively small fees for the whole case,
the Agent, Shri 'M', was promised 'a reasonable'fee"
without any fixation. He urges further that on his
own admission, Shri 'M' can point to nothing in the
.diaries or registers said to have been maintained by
him for his cases, which may substantiate his version.
He also urges that in view of the probabilities and the
evidenceweshould accept not merely that there was
a definite arrangement with Shri 'M' to accept only
Rs. 100 for the entire case but also that he was in
fact paid the said sum of Rs. 100 then and there.
After having given our consideration to the entire
evidence on this part qf the case, we are of the
opinion that we should dispose of this case without
coming to any definite conclusion on the disputed
facts, material for this issue. All that we need say is
that we are not quite happy about the evidence on
both sides bearing on this matter. We are inclined to
refrain from recording a categorical finding on this
issue, which if found against Shri 'M', may amount
virtually to a finding of criminal misappropriation.
We are willing to dispose of this issue .in favour of
Shri 'M' by giving him, so far as these proceedings are
concerned, the benefit of doubt in respect of the disputed facts material to this issue.
The matter arising under charge No. l may also be
shortly disposed of. The question under that charge
is whether, for withdrawing the unspent balance from
the Punjab High Court, Shri 'M' had the requisite
authority. In support of the alleged authority, he
relies both on specific authority given to him orally
-
S;C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
821
by or on behalf of the complainant, Attar Singh, and •
1956
also on the authority in his favour for the withdrawal l
h . 'M'
•
l' d f
th
d'
f th
V k 1 t
"re: S r<
'all
as imp ie
rom
e wor mg o
e
a a a nama
Advocate of tlie
executed in his favour by Attar Singh. The evidence St1J>reme Court of
in support of the specific oral authority is his . sole
111dia
sta.tepie~t before us on oath. He deposes that he was
-
authorised by the relation (or pairokar) of the com- Jaganr1adhadasJ.
plainant, Attar Singh, (who used to go to him in connection with the appeal) to withdraw the unspent
balance from the High Court. He stated that he was
unable to give the name of the pairokar but that he
was sitting in Court while he was giving evidence before us. The alleged relation or pairokar has not been .
examined. as a defence witness. In the proceedings before our learned brother, Bhagwati J., his version on
this part of the case is contained in paragraph 8 of
his affidavit dated the 5th March, 1956, which is as
follows:
·
"I requested Attar Singh to remit funds for prosecuting appeal on 21-12-51 and ·with his permililsion
wrote to the High Court on 17-1-52 for refund of the
balance out of Rs. 750.
Thus I received Rs: 242-1-9
from High Court in March, 1952".
This clearly indicates that h-is case then was that he
had the permission of Attar Singh himself for withdrawal of the balance. But when examined before our
learned brother, Bhagwati J., he said as follows:
"Somebody asked me to get the money from the
High Court to meet the expenses. Subsequently I
wrote to the High Court".
.
·
In answer to the specific question who that somebody
was he said "I do not remember exactly who it was".
He did not then say that he was the complainant's
:relation or pairoka.r. In his cross-examination before
us he says "His ·(Attar Singh'a) relation came to me
and told me that I should get the money from the High
Court". When further cross-examined with reference
to his previous statements he said that when he used
the phrase "with hie permission" in bis· affidavit. he
meant to indicate the agent or pair()kar of Attar
Singh and when further pressed as to who that relation was and whether he knows his name he was unable
822
StJPREME COURT REPORTS
[1!156)
7956
to give any satisfactory answers. His evidence on
1
. Sh . 'M'
this part of the case is highly unsatisfactory and can-
".t;~oc.: ofth:n not be accepted. We have no hesitation in coming
Supreme court of to the conclusion that he has not proved the specific
India
oral authority, which he has pleaded, for the withdrawal of the balance amount.
JagannadhadasJ.
Wh t •
t
l' d
·
t f h
h
a is nex re ie upon. m suppor o t e aut ority is the Vakalatnama exeeuted by Attar Singh in
his favour. The vakalatnama is in form No. 3 of the
Fifth Schedule of the Supreme "ourt Rules, 1950,'before their amendment in 1954.
What is relied upon
is that this form authorises the Agent not only to
deposit moneys but also to draw moneys. It is·also
urged that an Agent has the power by virtue of the
specific wording of the vakalatnama "to do all things
incidental to his acting" for his client in connection
with the appeal. It is urged that the deposit of printing charges and the withdrawal of the unspent ha.lance
of the printing charges are all acts incidental to acting for a client in connection with his appeal. On
the other side it is pointed out that the form itself
indicates that the acting is to be in connection with
the work in the Supreme Court since it is headed "in
the Supreme Court of India" and that the authority
arising under this vakala.tnama cannot extend to acts
to be da,ne in the Punjab High Court. We do not
consider it necessary to decide about the exact scope
of the power exercisable under the vakalatnama. with
reference to the form that has been employed. There
is the outstanding fact in this case that the amount
has been in fact paid by Shri 'M' direct into the
Punjab High Court on a letter issued by the High
Court to him. There is also the fact that the receipt
for the said a.mount has been issued by the High Court
to him and in his name. There is the further fact that
the unspent balance has been paid by the High Court
directly to him without requiring any further written
power or authority, apparently because he was the
depositor and was therefore presumably entitled to
withdraw the unspent balance. In view of these facts
it would appear that the High Court itself was under
the impression that the withdrawal was within the
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
823
scope of Shri 'M's authority as an Agent for the ap1'56
P. eal in the Supreme Court. This impression, if wrong, 1
. Sh . 'M'
-
b
h
d b Sb · 'M' n re.
rt
' an
was one that may well have
een s are
y
n
Ad~oeateofthe
equally with the High Court. In these circumstances, supreme Court of
while we definitely hold that the specific oral authoIndia
rity set up has not been proved, it appears to us that
-
·
t"
db t k
f th"
h
JagannadhadaaJ,
no serious no ice nee
e a en o
is c arge.
What remains is charge No. 3 which is as follows:
"That you after receiving tlhe sum of Rs. 242-1-9
in March 1952, retained the said sum, without any
intimation to your client Attar Singh and without
claiming any amount as due from him by way of fees
to you and without lodging a bill for taxation against
him for a period of over three years".
The questions which require consideration under this
charge are (1) whether Shri 'M' intimated Attar
Singh about the withdrawal of the unspent balance
of printing charges, (2) whether Shri 'M' intimated
Attar Singh that any fee remained due and made any
demand in that behalf, and (3) whether Shri 'M' was
justified in retaining the amount towards fees without lodging a bill for taxation ag~inst his client.
It is now necessary to recall the relevant facts
and enumer:ate some further facts. Criminal Appeal
No. 12 of 1950 was filed into this Court on M~y 11,
1950, by the Agent, Shri 'M', on the basis of a
vakalatnama signed by Attar Singh without date and
accepted by Shri 'M' on May 11, 1950. Attar Singh
says that when he signed the vaka]atnama there
were blanks therein and that after signing, he gave
the vakalatnama with the blanks to Sardar Ra.ghbir
Singh. It is his evidence that having fixed the engagement with Sardar Raghbit Singh and paid the money
into his hands, he went away leaving the actual
filing of the appeal, on a later date, to Sardar
Raghbir Singh. Shii 'M' who accepted the vakalatnama on May 11, 1950, and who filed the appeal memorandum into Court on the same date with the signatures thereon, also of Sardar Raghbir Singh and Shri
Madan, admits that the blanks in the vakalatnama
were filled in by him in his own handwriting. But he
says that Attar Singh was also present at the time of
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
1956
his acceptance of vakalatnama and the filing of the
appeal and that Attar Singh then paid him a sum of
Jn re: Shri 'M', an
• h
1
f "
H
Advocate of the Rs. 50 wit out any sett ement o .ees.
e says
s..preme c0,.rt of further that when he accepted the engagement he was
India
given to .understand by Sardar Raghbir Singh that
-
he would be paid reasonable fee. This was at the time
JagannadhadasJ. when the appeal was filed in Court and presumably
in· the presence of Attar Singh according to him.
Attar Singh denies that he was present or paid Rs. 50
to Shri 'M' at the time of filing the appeal or that he
met Shri 'M' at all at the time.
On his evidence, if
accepted, Shri 'M' could have no .expectation of any
further payment of fe(ls.
About an year later there
was the payment of Rs. 750, towards the printing
charges.
It is admitted that the amount was supplied by means of a draft in favour of the Deputy
Registrar of the High Court given to Sardar Raghbir
Singh, by the brother-in-law of Attar Singh. This wa11
passed on to Shri 'M' who sent it on·to the High Court.
A receipt dated July 19, 1951, was issued therefor by
the High Court in Shri 'M's name. It is in evidence
that the printed record was received in the Supreme
Court in December, 1951. Intimation of the same was
presumably given to the Agents concerned in due
course. Shri 'M' applied to the High Court in Janu,
ary, 1952, for refund of the unspent balance of the
printing charges and re9eived an amount of Rs. 242-1-9
in March, 1952. The appeal was set down for he:i.ring
m May, 1952. It is the evidence of Attar Singh that
on receiving intimation that the appeal was coming
up for hearing he came down to Delhi from Bombay,
where he was employed at the time, and found that
Sardar Raghbir Singh had left for China and was not
available for arguing the appeal.
His evidence is
that he enquired from the wife of Sardar Raghbir
Singh who told him to meet Shri 'M' which he did.
He says that they came to the conclusion that Shri
Umrigar, an Advocate of this Court, was to be engaged to argue the appeal. Thereupon Shri Umrigar
was fixed up.
The appeal was not actually taken up
in May, 1952, as expected. The engagements of both
Sardar Raghbir Singh and Shri Madan were termi-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
825
nated sometime in August, 1952, by Shri 'M' under
1956
instructions of Attar Singh. The appeal came up for 1: .
• Sh . 'M'
h
'
l
· N
b
195"
I
Sh ' n re.
r•
' an
earing, a ter on, m
ovem er,
::..
t was
r1
Adwcate of the
Umrigar who argued the appeal.
Admittedly Shri supreme Court of
'M' was also present at the hearing and instructed
India
Shri Umrigar. The judgment in the appeal wa-s deli-
-.
vered on the 5th December, 1952, allowing the appeal JagannadhadasJ.
and remanding it for further hearing by the Sessions
Court, as an appellate court, on the evidence on record. It would appear that nearly two years later, i.e.,
on November 24, 1954, Attar Singh applied to the
Punjab High Court stating that he had paid Rs. 750
for the printing charges of the record in his appeal
and that some balance was lying to his credit out of
the said amount and requesting that the same may
be remitted to him. He received a reply thereto from
the Deputy Registrar of the Punjab High Court dated
October 17, 1955, intimatingthat theunspentbalanee
of Rs. 242-1-9 was refunded to his counsel, Shri 'M'
of the Supreme Court, and advising him to contact
him in this behalf. It is in view of this information
that Attar Singh ultimately filed on December 5, 1955,
a complaint on which the present proceedings were
initiated.
The evidence of Attar Singh on this part of the case
is quite simple. He says that some time after the
appeal was filed, i.e., in or about January 1951, he
went away to Bombay in connection withprivateemployment which he had obtained there and that he
came to Delhi again only in May, 1952, on receiving
intimation that his appeal was expected to be taken
up. He says further that since the appeal was not
taken np in May and went beyond the long vacation
he got himself transferred to, and remained in, Delhi
since about May, 1952.
He says that he came into
direct contact with Shri 'M' only from May, 1952,
and that he had not met him till then. It is also
his evidence that he was never told by Shri 'M' about
the unspent balance being available or of his having
withdraiWn the same. He was also not told that any
fees had yet to be paid. He was under the impression
that no further fee was due to Shri 'M' and that his
1956
In t'e: Shri 'M', an
Advoc4te of the
Supreme COt,rl of
India
Jagannadhadas}.
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
fees must have been paid up at the outset by Sardar
Raghbir Singh. There wa~. no demand by Shri 'M'
from him at any time for balance·of fees, not even at
the time when his appeal was heard by this Court for
two or three days. Towards the end of 1954, he was
greatly in need of money on account of the further
proceedings in his appeal consequent on the remand.
He then felt that he might enquire from the High
Court about the availability of anY. unspent balance
out of the printing charges deposited and get back
the same and meet his needs. He accordingly wrote
a letter to the High Court in November, 1954. He
had to send a number' of reminders. He ultimately
received the reply dated October 17, 1955, from the
High Court nearly an year after his first enquiry.
According to Attar Singh, before he wrote to the High
Court enquiring about the unspent balance, he approached Shri 'M' and enquired from him. It was on his
advice that he wrote to the High Court. His evidence further is that .when he actually received the
letter from the Deputy Registrar of the High Court
dated October 17, 1955, he again met Shri 'M' about
the unspent balance and enquired of him whether he
had received the amount, but that Shri 'M' denied
having received any money. He says that thereafter
he confronted him with the reply he had received
from the High Court and that on seeing it Shri 'M' was
astonished and told him to come later on. He states.
that when he went to him again, Shri 'M' told him
that he will return the money after two days, but
that ultimately he evaded him. It was after this that
at the suggestion of some friends, he lodged the complaint with the Registrar of this Court.
As against this, Shri 'M's evidence is as follows.
When the pri.nted record was received from the High
Court, and he got intimation of the same, he wrote
a letter dated December 21, 1951, to Attar Singh
intimating that the printed record had been received
in the Supreme Court, that further steps have to be
taken and that he is to supply him with fund!! therefor. He says that thereafter Attar Singh's relation
came to him in January, 1952, and told him to write
-
'
s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
827
to the High Court to get a refund of the unspent
7956
balance of the printing charges. He admits that he
d
h
In re: Shri 'M', an
received the refund in March, 1952, an says that e
Advocate of the
appropriated the same towards his fee. He also says s .. preme com·t of
that when in May, 1952, Attar Singh came in connecIndia
tion with the expected hearing of the appeal, he told
-
him about the unspent balance having been received JaeannadhadasJ.
by him and that later on, i.e.; after the hearing of
the appeal was over, he told him that the bill for the
work done by him in connection with the appeal would
be about Rs. 500. He denies the versio11 of Attar Singh
that he was not aware of the unspent balance having
been drawn and that for the first time he contacted
Shri 'M' in 1954 for the unspent balance and wrote to
the High Court on his advice for refund of the
balance, if any. He denies specifically that Attar
Singh met him in this ·connection a number of times
and wrote reminders to the High Court at his instance.
He also denies categorically that he was confronted
by Attar Singh with the letter received by him from
the High Court and that he then told him all that had
happened.
The question before us is which of these versions
is to be accepted. Was there any intimation by Shri
'M' to Attar Singh that he withdrew the unspent
balance and did he demand from him the alleged
balance of fees?
Admittedly, there was no written
intimation and no specific written demand. The orily
writing from himself to his client that Shri 'M' relies
on, is a letter dated December 21, 1951. He produces
an alleged copy thereof which is as follows:
"S. Attar Singh
C/o Gurdwara Sisganj,
Delhi.
Dear Sir,
Your appeal pending in the Supreme Court
No. 12 of 1950 is ripe for further step.s as the record
has been printed and despatched by the High Court,
Simla.
Now you haveto supply me withfundsfordrafting petition of appeal, statement of case, affidavits
of service of notices and typing charges.
1956
In re: Shri 'M', an
Advocate of the
Supr~me Court of
India
JagannadliadasJ,
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
Since the record has reached the Supreme Court
on 12th December 1951, you are to file petition within
30 days of receipt of this date.
Please treat this as very urgent, otherwise the
appeal shall be dismissed for non-prosecution".
It may be notiCed that the word~ng of this letter does
not in terms state that what is "being demanded is his
own fees, Paragraph·2 of the letter may well be understood by a lay-man, as asking for nothing more than
expenses to be incul'red. Attar Singh deposes that he
never received the letter. It is clear from the evidence
that Attar Singh was not in Delhi at the time and it
is cur.ions that the letter is addressed to him at Sisganj
Gurdwara, Delhi. Shri 'M' has been cross-examined
on this and in our opinion, he has not been able to
give any satisfactory explanation. He says that the
address was furnished by SardBr Raghbir Singh. E.ut
Sardar Raghbir Singh was not asked about it.
Assuming the letter to be true, it is obvious that.it
would not have been received by Attar Singh. Clearly
no money has been remitted, nor any written communication received, in response to this letter.. If the
letter is true, one would have" expected some further
letter to have been written to him with the correct
address on proper enquiry.
It is to get over this
difficulty that the story has been put forward by Sbri
'M' of a relation of Attar Singh having contacted
him in January, 1952, and instructing him to withdraw the unspent balance, if any, of the printing
charges.
There is nothing to show that these alleged
instructions were by way of response to the above
letter.