top of page

Pandurang dattatray Khandekar vs Bar Council of India and others AIR,1984 Supreme Court 110.

  • Whatsapp
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

A group of 12 advocate practicing in two courts of S.D. Ms in the collectorate of Pune are the complainants both the state bar council and Bar Council of Delhi through its disciplinary committee found the appellant and one Agvane Guilty of giving improper legal advice and held the charge of professional misconduct provided the and suspended the appellant for a period of 4 months and Agvane for a period of 2 months therefrom.

As regard the lenient punishment as stated above, the disciplinary committee observed:
" we take into consideration the age of the Advocate the family they have to maintain, the environment in which they practice and the practice and the standard which is maintained in such an environment is not very high as the bar council Association rules certify toutism and provide for toutism which could be unthinkable anywhere else ."

In appeal , the supreme court observed that there is a difference between the Giving of improper advice and giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the on the part of legal practitioner in the exercise of profession does not amount to professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of professional misconduct element of moral delinquency. of that there is no suggestion here, and there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour.

bottom of page