Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

"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