JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN versus SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN versus SRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

Respondent no.1, being a paid retainer counsel for the appellant, conducted the case against the appellant's interest, failed to disclose conflict of interest, did not defend or communicate important developments or orders, resulting in enhancement of compensation for his sister. His actions amounted to professional misconduct, thereby warranting suspension from practice as an advocate for six months. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were not proved guilty of misconduct as allegations against them lacked sufficient evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran; Respondent No.1: Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary; Respondent No.2: Respondent no.2; Respondent No.3: Respondent no.3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; modified disciplinary committee order
Legal Topics
Advocate's Professional Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, Bar Council Disciplinary Proceedings
Professional Misconduct Legal Profession Advocate's Professional Misconduct Conflict of Interest Bar Council Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran

Appellant

Sri Ashok Kumar Choudhary

Respondent No.1

Respondent no.2

Respondent No.2

Respondent no.3

Respondent No.3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent no.1 was guilty of professional misconduct under s.35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
  2. 2 Whether respondent nos.2 and 3 were also guilty of professional misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent no.1, being a paid retainer counsel for the appellant, conducted the case against the appellant's interest, failed to disclose conflict of interest, did not defend or communicate important developments or orders, resulting in enhancement of compensation for his sister. His actions amounted to professional misconduct, thereby warranting suspension from practice as an advocate for six months. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were not proved guilty of misconduct as allegations against them lacked sufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; modified disciplinary committee order

Orders

  • Respondent no.1 suspended from practice as an advocate for six months from date of judgment.
  • Disciplinary Committee's finding that respondent nos.2 and 3 are not guilty of misconduct is upheld.