Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

"Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest is Professional Misconduct," Rules Supreme Court in Landmark Decision on Advocates Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment that sets a precedent for legal ethics in India, the Supreme Court today upheld the decision of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to suspend an advocate's license for failing to disclose a conflict of interest. The Court also reprimanded the advocate's son, who was assisting him, with an undertaking for future conduct.

The Bench, comprising Justices ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL, observed, "Failure to disclose conflict of interest is professional misconduct," thereby sending a strong message to the legal community about the importance of ethical conduct.

The case, MR. LAXMAN BAPPAJI NAIK (DEAD THROUGH LRS) versus RANJEET @ RANU YADAV DOKH & ANR, revolved around a property dispute where the advocate, referred to as A-1 in the judgment, and his son, A-2, represented a complainant while A-1's wife had a vested interest in the same property. Neither disclosed this conflict to the complainant.

The Court stated, "It is impossible to accept that A-2 had no knowledge about the personal interest of his mother in the subject property," rejecting the advocates' contention that the complainant was aware of the conflict and that A-2, being new to practice, was unaware of it.

The judgment also addressed an appeal by the original complainant, who argued for a harsher penalty on A-2, alleging acts of forgery. The Court found no basis for such allegations in the original complaint and stated, "The submission made by the complainant to impose a graver penalty on A-2 also deserves to be rejected."

The Court upheld the penalties imposed by the Bar Councils, with a modification in the wording of the undertaking to be given by A-2. "The Undertaking should be that A-2 shall maintain the highest professional standards and shall abide by the Rules of Ethics framed by the Bar Council," the judgment read.

As a part of the compliance and disposal, A-1 has been directed to surrender his Enrolment Certificate to the State Bar Council, and both A-1 and A-2 have been instructed to file compliance reports.

 Date of Decision: July 27, 2023

LAXMAN BAPPAJI NAIK (DEAD THROUGH LRS) vs RANJEET @ RANU YADAV DOKH & ANR.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Laxman_bappa_Vs_Ranjeet-Ranu_27-jul-2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News