TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Bombay High Court for six months. The learned Judges considered that they had no power to affect his position as an Advocate of this Court, so directed that a copy of their judgment be submitted to this Court to enable this Court to take such action on it as it thought fit. Acting on this report this Court issued notice to the petitioner under Order IV, rule 30, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. About the same time Mr. G filed petition for a writ under article 32 of the Constitution. We are confining ourselves in this order to the matter raised in the summons. 3. There is no dispute about the facts. They are set out in Mr. G's petition under article 32 and are as follows : On the 23rd of July, 1951, Mr. G's client is said to have entered into an agreement with the Baroda Theaters Ltd., for work on a picture which they intended to produce. The remuneration agreed on was ₹ 15,000. Of this ₹ 3,000 was paid at once and the balance, ₹ 12,000, was to be paid on the completion of the picture. It is said that at the date of the dispute the Baroda Theaters admitted that ₹ 9,400 was due, but as they did not pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofessional misconduct. 10. Mr. G argued the matter at length, and to his credit be it said, objectively and with restraint, but it is not necessary to cover the wide field he did because we are not concerned with ordinary rights of contract, nor with ordinary legal rights, but with the special and rigid rules of professional conduct expected of and applied to a specially privileged class of persons who, because of their privileged status, are subject to certain disabilities which do not attach to other men and which do not attach even to them in a non-professional character. To use the language of the Army, an Advocate of this Court is expected at all times to comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer and a gentleman. In the Army it is a military offence to do otherwise (see section 45 of the Army Act, 1950) though no notice would be taken of ungentlemanly conduct under the ordinary law of the land, and none in the case of a civilian. So here, he is bound to conduct himself in a manner befitting the high and honourable profession to whose privileges he has so long been admitted; and if he departs from the high standards which that profession has set for it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to members of the English Bar, and in any event it was abrogated in India in 1926. 13. We will first examine whether there was a difference between Barristers and other classes of lawyers. This point was raised in the Punjab in 1907 but was rejected by a majority of seven Judges to two in a Full Bench of nine Judges in Ganga Ram v. Devi Das (61 P.R. (of 1907) p. 280). But it is to be observed that even the two dissenting Judges agreed that an engagement of the present kind was not open to a member of the Punjab Bar. Lal Chand J. (who dissented) said at page 331 : I am in perfect accord with the Hon'ble Chief Judge that stipulation to receive a share in the result of the litigation is different from a stipulation to be paid a fee contingent on success. 14. The other dissenting Judge, Chatterji J., agreed with him but even as regards the practice which these two learned Judges thought permissible at the date of their decision, Chatterji J. said at page 299 : It must not be supposed, however, that I am in favour of the practice. I should on the whole prefer its abolition.......... 15. We agree with Chitty J. at page 326 that there was no justification even at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practitioner is competent to settle the terms of his engagement and his fees by private agreement with his client. This, Mr. G said, entitles him to enter into any agreement which the law permits in the case of ordinary persons. Legal practitioners, according to him, are now governed by the law of contract and not by rules imported from other countries with different ideas and different social customs and imposed on the Bar in India mainly by English Judges. We do not agree, because this Act is not concerned with professional misconduct. That is dealt with by the Bar Councils Act which was passed in the same year (1926). The Bar Councils Act makes no modification in the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court or of the sense in which professional misconduct had been understood throughout India up to that time. 19. The only Indian decision which Mr. G could quote in his favour was Muthoo Lall v. Budree Pershad (1 N.W.P.H.C.R. 1). But that was not a case in which disciplinary action was being taken against a legal practitioner for professional misconduct. The question there was whether an agreement which might be objectionable on the ground of professional misconduct could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
