Introduction

In this case there is an allegation on the opponent as regards divulging or misusing confidential papers given in work in another civil suit. Arguments advanced by advocate of opponent advocate alleged with such misconduct and decision of MH Bar Committee and later on by BCI DC are explained in detail in following lines.

Facts

In this case very small issue arose and that was that Advocate Nani Palkhiwala and Advocate Dadachandji had done work related to income tax for Colonel Bhawani Singh and whatever documents were there relating to property were misused by them later on in one civil case relating to partition of joint family of King of Jaipur.

Arguments advanced by the advocate of opponent (i.e. advocate of Mr. Nani A. Palkhiwal)

  1. S. 125 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 likewise mandates that attorneys maintain the confidence of their clients. Under S. 125 IEA, 1872, exemption from said obligation is permitted only in the following two circumstances:-
    • Communication made in support of any illicit purpose.
    • Any information discovered by an advocate while working indicates a crime has been committed after he started working there.
  2. An advocate is not allowed to act in a way that exploits or abuses the trust the client has placed in him.
  3. Allegation of switching sides, or failure to uphold the following obligation: An advocate who has previously represented a party is not permitted to represent the other party in any ensuing related suit matter.

Arguments advanced in answer to such allegations levied on opponent by his advocate

  1. He (his client) was working for all the family members of King of Jaipur and the legal situation was that all properties except trust property were joint ancestral property of the family of heirs of the King because the king was holding property as the Karta of the joint family and it was not the personal or self acquired property of the King.
  2. In the documents and information given by the complainant, there was no information of personal nature and opponent advocate remained as an advocate for family on behalf of one member of the family for partition of the joint family and hence he has not committed any breach of duty as an advocate for complainant.

Decision of dismissal of complaint passed by MH Bar Council Disciplinary committee

  • MH BC DC gave some time to complainant for presentation of an additional affidavit, but complainant had not himself executed that affidavit but in fact whatever information was mentioned in the affidavit made by his attorney was not consistent with the information personally presented by the complainant.
  • Moreover in the affidavit executed by the complainant's attorney, certain matters were such that were only within the personal knowledge of the complainant.
  • After that, Shri Nani A. Palkhiwala decided not to remain as an advocate in partition related family matter civil suit and hence MH BC DC came to the conclusion that this complaint is liable to be dismissed under the above circumstances and dismissed the same accordingly.
  • Decision- As the misconduct was not there on the part of opponent, MH BC DC dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant of professional misconduct on the part of Adv. Nani A. Palkhiwala. o Dissatisfied with the decision of MH BC DC, complainant went into appeal to Bar Council of India Disciplinary committee.

Decision of BCI DC

In addition to above facts of the case and arguments, BCI DC had noted certain additional points as under-

  1. Complainant Dr. Colonel Bhawani Singh had not taken any objection in the preliminary stage in a civil suit for partition of joint family, but objection was taken by him when the matter reached to SC.
  2. In addition to this, when BCI DC asked direct question to the complainant's advocate as to whether there was any matter or information which was not known to other members of the family but was known only to the complainant and disclosed by the complainant to the opponent, then at that time complainant was not able to show any such matter or information which was confidential.
  3. Moreover, it may be noted that in working for income tax matters for the family and working for individual member of the family later on in a civil suit for partition of joint family, there is no question of changing party or side.
  4. In addition to this it was also noted that opponent advocate Mr. Nani A. Palkhiwala has own his own decided not to remain as an advocate in a civil suit for partition of joint family and consequently withdrawn himself as an advocate in that civil suit, hence there is no meaning of this complaint at all and therefore this complaint was dismissed by BCI DC.
  5. It also ordered complainant to pay and compensate cost to the opponent Mr. Nani A. Palkhiwala for this litigation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.

Decision:

  1. Col. Bhawani Singh's complaint was dismissed as no professional misconduct on the part of opponent advocate was proved by the complainant.
  2. Complainant was ordered costs Rs. 25,000/- to be compensated by him to Adv. Nani A Palkhiwala within 2 months from the date