VEERABHADRA RAO versus TEK CHAND

VEERABHADRA RAO versus TEK CHAND

Attesting a forged affidavit by an advocate, knowing the deponent is absent, constitutes gross professional misconduct warranting serious punishment. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under section 38 includes varying both the punishment and the findings of the disciplinary committee. The gravity of the misconduct justified suspension from practice.

Parties
Appellant: M. Veerabhadra Rao; Respondent: Tek Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 October 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India Under Advocates Act S.38
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with variation of punishment.
Legal Topics
Attestation of Affidavits, Professional Standards, Fraudulent Documents, Disciplinary Proceedings, Punishment for Advocates
Professional Misconduct Advocacy Attestation of Affidavits Professional Standards Fraudulent Documents Disciplinary Proceedings Punishment for Advocates

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Veerabhadra Rao

Appellant

Tek Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India Under Advocates Act S.38

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attestation of a forged affidavit by an advocate, knowing the deponent is absent, constitutes professional misconduct
  2. 2 Whether punishment for such misconduct should be commensurate with its gravity
  3. 3 Scope of Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under s.38 of Advocates Act to vary punishment and findings

Ratio Decidendi

Attesting a forged affidavit by an advocate, knowing the deponent is absent, constitutes gross professional misconduct warranting serious punishment. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under section 38 includes varying both the punishment and the findings of the disciplinary committee. The gravity of the misconduct justified suspension from practice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with variation of punishment.

Orders

  • Appellant suspended from practice for five years, until and including October 31, 1989.
  • Appellant to pay costs to respondent, quantified at Rs 3,000.