Scribd
Upload
341 views

Vinitha Reddy

The appellant Rudra Pratap Mishra filed an appeal against the judgement of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. The respondent Chandra Dutt Pandey had alleged professional misconduct against the appellant for not informing him about developments in a civil suit and not properly cross-examining witnesses. The State Bar Council found no negligence by the appellant and reprimanded him. However, the Disciplinary Committee Appeal found that while the appellant did not deny preponing the hearing date or failing to cross-examine witnesses fully, an advocate is not always expected to inform a client of all developments. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 1000 in costs to the respondent.

Uploaded by

vinitha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
341 views

Vinitha Reddy

The appellant Rudra Pratap Mishra filed an appeal against the judgement of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. The respondent Chandra Dutt Pandey had alleged professional misconduct against the appellant for not informing him about developments in a civil suit and not properly cross-examining witnesses. The State Bar Council found no negligence by the appellant and reprimanded him. However, the Disciplinary Committee Appeal found that while the appellant did not deny preponing the hearing date or failing to cross-examine witnesses fully, an advocate is not always expected to inform a client of all developments. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 1000 in costs to the respondent.

Uploaded by

vinitha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTE APPEAL NO. 50/2001

BETWEEN

Rudra Pratap Mishra - Appellant


AND
Chandra Dutt Pandey- Respondent

Facts of the Case :

The appellant has filed the appeal against the judgement and decision.
Pronounced by Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P

The Respondent appointed the appellant as his council in civil suit. The appellant filed the original civil suit
against Shri, Arun and others. After the Evidence of plaintiff side was concluded, suit was adjourned for
recording the evidence of the defendant. The complaint returned to his village and in his absence the
defendant had filed an application for preponing the date of hearing, which was not opposed by appellant and
suit was ordered by the court. The Entire Evidence of defendant side was recorded in absence of the
complaint and appellant did not cross examine the written or relevant aspect of controversy. The appellant
had also not informed the complaint about the developments took place. He had also not informed the
complaint about the developments took place. The appellant had been to his village as he too belonged to the
same village.

In further alleged that the appellant had colluded with the defendant to the suits and for that reason was not
informed to the complaint about the developments took place and did not cross examine the witness on
relevant aspect of controversy involved in the suit.

The complaint alleging the appellant is in a habit of misusing his position as an advocate.

The State Bar Council found that there was no negligence of the council by the appellant was reprimanded
for committing professional misconducted was directed to pay Rs.1000/- by way of cost.

Issues:-

1.Whether the appellant advocate is committed professional misconduct or other misconduct?

Findings:-

The fact of preponement and cross examination of the entire evidence of Defendant side has not been denied
by appellant. It is true that he has discharged his duty as a lawyer by cross-examining the witnesses.

Ordinarily, An Advocate is not expected to inform all the dates of developments in suit to his clients and it
may be the duty of the client to remain in touch with the advocate in respect of his litigation.

The appellant has not committed professional misconduct the Trail of Suit and his supporters appeared on
behalf of the appellant.

Order:-

The appeal is dismissed with the cost. The appellant shall pay the amount of Rs.1000/- by way of cost to the
respondent. The appellant shall bear his own costs.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy