LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     24 October 2009

Delhi HC initiates criminal proceedings against lawyer for l

The Delhi High Court on 21st october 2009 directed criminal proceedings against a lawyer for misleading it by saying that he could not appear before it in a case as he was not aware of the date of the hearing. The court imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on him for giving a false statement and asked the Bar Council Of India to consider cancellation of his licence. The Court came to the conclusion after it was revealed that the lawyer R K Panigrahi and his client were both aware of the date of hearing as he had got gate pass issued to his client on that particular date. "I consider that the conduct of the counsel is unbecoming of an advocate. It only seems that the advocate has lost sense of professional ethics. He misled the litigant and even forged his diary to show to the court that he had noted wrong date," Justice S N Dhingra said. "Registrar General of the High Court is directed to file a complaint against the advocate as well as against his client for filing a false affidavit in the court and making false averments and allegation deliberately in the court," the judge said. The false averments made by the counsel came to light when the opposite party in the case had filed an RTI application while seeking information whether gate pass was issued for the erring client. The High Court in the reply had disclosed that on the date of hearing the erring lawyer has signed for the gate pass of his client and he was present in the court. "It is obvious that the counsel, with the intention of playing fraud with the court, knowing that his client had appeared in the court and watched the proceedings and he himself had noted right date in his diary, made this false application," the court said after going through the RTI reply. The Court dismissed the plea of the counsel who had pleaded to recall ex-parte order which was passed in his absence


Learning

 7 Replies

Rekha..... ( Practicing lawyer(B.Com LL.M in Business law ))     24 October 2009

Thank you Respected Jitendra Sir for such a informative posting. I will show this to some of our seniors who are doing this kind of practice normally and I will see their reactions 

SANJEEV KUMAR (STUDENT)     24 October 2009

Thanks Jatinder ji, Lawyers should behave properly afterall they are officer in the court. I further add that the any advocate who tries to mislead the court on crucial matters be punished

see my other post: advocate misconduct 

Raj Kumar Makkad (Adv P & H High Court Chandigarh)     29 October 2009

I go with the reasoned order of Hon'ble Delhi HC and such black sheeps should be weeded out from the legal fratenity who are blunt over our prestige and reputation.

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     03 November 2009

Thanks for posting the message on this site. It is an eye opener for all Advocates. As it is , we go on making statements [sometimes false]  while arguing bail that he is the only earning member, no antecedents, falsely implicated etc. but this taking the Court for a ride is definitely bad. More so because it was made just for the sake of obtaining an order in favour of his client. How desperate can we become? 

Rajan Salvi (Lawyer)     03 November 2009

Mr. Jitendra, it would be better if the name of the advocate was not mentioned. [This is my personal view]

Jithendra.H.J (Lawyer)     06 November 2009

The Supreme Court on 6th Nov 2009 issued contempt notice to noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan for allegedly casting aspersions on some of the judges, including a senior apex court judge and previous Chief Justices of India in an interview to a news magazine. Bhushan in an interview to 'Tehelka' had made remarks against Justice S H Kapadia who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India. He said Justice Kapadia, being a member of the Forest Bench along with Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, should not have heard the matter relating to Vedanta Sterlite Group as he held shares of the company. The court also issued notice to Tarun Tejpal, Editor-in-chief of Tehelka and posted the matter for hearing before a Bench not having Justice Kapadia as its member.

K. Rajendra Prakash (Advocate)     02 December 2009

I am very happy with the reasoned order of the Hon'ble High Court.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading