CASE LAWS RELATING TO CONTEMPT OF COURT

V.P.Kumaravelu v. The Bar Council of India

The appellant was a city government pleader in all the civil courts in madras other than the
high courts. He was required to conduct all the civil matters pending in the civil courts of
madras on behalf of the government.

The first complaint filed by the commission and secretary of Tamil Nadu against the appellant
before the disciplinary committee of the bar council of the Tamil Nadu was that the suit no.
400 of 1978 was decreed ex parte against as he did not file a fresh memo of his appearance.
Another complaint pertaining the appellant, a suit is related to it was filed by the Travancore
Textiles Ltd. Against the state of Tamil Nadu. The complaint alleged that a result of the gross
negligence on the part of the appellant the government of Tamil Nadu had suffered substantial
loss.

The appellant, in another suit filed by an employee of Directorate of Education of State of

Tamil Nadu challenged his date of birth, did not file memorandum for appearance on behalf of
the state government and an ex parte decree was passed in that suit.

In all these cases the appellant contended that since the office staff had not put up the papers
before him, it was through inadvertence that the suits were decreed ex parte.

The Bar Council of India held him on the charge of constructive negligence and it reprimanded
him for time lapse.

In appeal, the Supreme Court held that there was no finding of any mala fides on the part of
the appellant or any deliberate inaction on his part in not attending to the cases. There was a
failure on his part to discharge his duties towards his client but it was not deliberate but on
account of heavy pressure of work and lack of diligence on the part of his staff. The negligence
on his part was without moral turpitude or delinquency and therefore he was not held guilty of
professional misconduct.

Prahalad Saran Gupta v. Bar council of India

The appellant Prahlad Saran Gupta was practicing advocate at Ghaziabad in U.P. He was
appearing the decree-holder in a case int eh court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. A complaint was
received by the U.P. State bar council from Rajendra Prasad alleging him withholding of Rs.
1500/- without paying to the decree-holder and with other allegations.

The State Bar Council referred the case to its Disciplinary Committee but it could not complete
the proceedings within one year and the same was transferred to the Bar Council of India.
The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India did not find merit int eh allegation in the
complaint that the appellant was grossly careless in handling the execution case. However, the
committee found the appellant guilty of gross professional misconduct regarding withholding
Rs.1500/- which was handed over to him. The court imposed penalty of reprimand on the
appellant for the said misconduct of wrongfully retaining the amount.

Hikmat Ali Khan v. Ishwar Prasad Arya

Ishwar Prasad Arya was an advocate practicing at Badaun in U.P. He assaulted his opponent,
Radley Shyam in the court-room of Munsif at Badaun with a Knife. After investigation he was
prosecuted for offences under section 307 of the IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act and he
was sentenced for 3 years imprisonment. But he remained free on a fraudulent letter said to
have come from the Governor suspending the conviction. The III Additional district and
session Judge, Badaun sent a complaint containing these facts to the chairman, Bar Council of
U.P. The disciplinary committee of U.P. Bar Council debarred him from practice for a period
of two years. The advocate appealed to the Bar Council of India which set aside the orders of
the Bar Council of U.P.

The appellant Hikmat Ali Khan complained against the advocate and prayed for a fresh inquiry.
In the said proceedings the advocate appeared and filed his written statement but thereafter he
did not appear.

Hence the Bar Council of U.P. proceeded ex parte against him and the Disciplinary Committee
of the state Bar Council of U.P. debarred him for a period of three years. The advocate again
appealed to the Bar Council of India and it had set aside the punishment. Then Hikmat Ali
field appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that his conduct was such that his
name should be removed from the state roll of advocates as he was found guilty of an offence
of attempting to commit murder and convicted for it and as he was unworthy for remaining in
the profession.

P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murthi and other

In the instant case one Shri Ram Murthi, Vidyavati and two others claimed for the property of
late Krishna Das. P.D. Gupta was the advocate throughout all the proceedings of the case on
behalf of Vidyavati. Though knowingly, P.D.Gupta and his son-in-law Kumar Gupta
purchased some portion of the property. The advocate further sold the property purchased from
Vidyavati to a third party and made profit. A complaint was made against P.D. Gupta,
Advocate to the Bar Council of Delhi. But the Disciplinary committee of the Delhi Bar Council
could not dispose the case within one year and it was transferred to the Bar Council of India.
The disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India observed that P.D.Gupta knew
Vidyavati and he also knew that the property purchased by him was the subject matter of
litigation and he purchased the property at a throw-away price of Rs.1,89,000/-

The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India held the advocate P.D.Gupta guilty of
professional misconduct and suspended from practice for a period of one year. It also stated
that there was no Bar for an advocate to purchase the property and he will never purchase the
property, the title of which in sunder doubt as he being a law knowing person. P.D.Gupta
appealed to the Supreme Court on the decision of the Bar Council of India. The Supreme Court
found the order genuine and valid and did not interfere with the punishment awards to
P.D.Gupta.