The Supreme Court in the case observed and has upheld the disciplinary action taken by the Bar Council of India, BCI which being against an advocate who was running a taxi service.
The Advocate in the case is barred from the practise for one year due to his professional misconduct.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case was hearing an appeal moved by an advocate against the decision of the Bar Council of India to bar him from practice over professional misconduct.
The present case revolved around two key allegations. Firstly, it was established that the advocate had represented conflicting parties in cases. In the legal matter, the advocate had initially represented a complainant, his brother, and his mother. Subsequently, the advocate took on the case of the mother of the complainant’s, who was suing the complainant over the same land.
Secondly, the more serious allegation centred on the advocate’s involvement in running a taxi service. It has been found by the Disciplinary Committee there is the striking similarity in the first name of the registered owner of the vehicle used for business and the appellant. Therefore, the name of the father of the appellant and the registered owner was the same and the vehicle was being registered at the address of the appellant. It has also been observed by the said court that the second allegation raised is of very serious nature and that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council found that the appellant was having a business of running taxi service. Thus, the findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council are based on documentary evidence and this court finds no error in the action taken by the Disciplinary Committee when for the aforesaid misconduct, the appellant in the case was
directed not to practice law for a period of one year.
It has also been found by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council that the advocate had appeared as an advocate in both proceedings, thereby it violated the professional conduct rules. The Supreme Court in the case found no error in the decision of Bar Council Of India to bar the advocate from practice for one year.
