0704 08 Professional Ethics Case : Brajendra Nath Bhargava v. Ramchandra Kasliwal

CASE NAME: BRAJENDRA NATH BHARGAVA (DEAD) V/S RAMCHANDRA KASLIWAL AND ANR.

PETITIONER: BRAJENDRA NATH BHARGAVA (DEAD)       

RESPONDENT: RAMCHANDRA KASLIWAL AND ANR 

BENCH: A AHMADI, K PARIPOORNAN, S KURDUKAR

CITATION:  AIR 1999 SC 2866, JT 1998 (7) SC 621, RLW 1999 (2) SC 199, (1998) 9 SCC 169

LAWS INVOLVED:   Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 Rule 22, Rule 9

FACTS: 

    The Brajendra Nath Bhargava happened to be a Tenant of a showroom of Ramchandra Kasliwal who was then practicing as an advocate in the courts in Rajasthan/Jodhpur.

     Ramchandra Kasliwal owner of the showroom filed a case against Brajendra Nath Bhargava for Arrears of Rent and Possession on 21 Dec 1974. Advocate K.L. Saxena and Satyandra Saxena Representing Kasliwal were alleged for infringement of Rules 9 and 22 of the Bar Council of India, where they were accused of transferring the Property to R.C. Kasliwal Relatives.

    Judgement of Rajasthan State Bar Council. Based on the case against Brajendra Nath Which was decreed with standard Rent fixed Rs 300 per month.

     Based on the Accusation of Brajendra Nath Bhargava on Advocate K.L. Saxena and Satyendra Saxena, The State disciplinary committee concluded that it was Benami transaction as no evidence was led on Record to show that the Vendees means R.C. Kasliwals Family had paid the funds

The State Disciplinary Committee Funds Infringement of Rules 9 and 22 of the Bar Council of India. So, they were reprimanded for their action and fined Rs.300.

ISSUES:  

    Whether the Bar Council of India did the right thing by overruling the judgement of the State Disciplinary Committee?

 

JUDGEMENT:     

        After carefully examine the records and arguments of both the parties, The Bar Council of India was therefore, wrong in thinking that the conduct of the respondents was unblemished, the objection raised on Rule 9 and Rule 22 is not weigh, it’s important to ascertain whether they are guilty, or not and there should be some penalty of reprimand and Rs 300.

      The interference of Bar Council of India in State Council is not justified, because from the evidence it is clear that the 2 respondents had taken active interest in getting the property transferred to the Names of their relatives & the consideration had come of out of their funds

     Therefore, we set aside the order of the Bar Council of India by allowing this appeal & direct the respondents to suffer the sentence imposed upon them by the State Bar Council.

 

Download 

Pictorial Presentation of Brajendra Nath Bhargava v. Ramchandra Kasliwal and Another (1999) - YouTube