B. Veerabhadra Rao
& ANR. Vs. P. Dayanand  INSC 631 (27 March 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2929 OF 2002 B. Veerabhadra Rao & Anr.
...Appellant(s) Versus P. Dayanand ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned
counsel for the parties.
By the impugned
order, the Bar Council of India held that the appellants have acted in
violation of Rule 22 of Chapter II of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules
[hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"] and suspended them from
practicing as lawyers for a period of five years.
Rule 22 of the Rules
shall not, directly or indirectly, bid for or purchase, either in his own name
or in any other name, for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other
person, and property sold in the execution of a decree or order in any suit,
appeal or other proceeding in which he was in any way professionally
The above reproduced
rule contains a negative injunction against the advocates in the matter of
giving bid or purchasing any property sold in the execution of a decree or
order in any suit, appeal or any other proceeding in which they are in any way
professionally engaged. In terms of this rule, an advocate cannot directly or
indirectly give bid or purchase property sold in the execution by a decree etc.
either in his own name or in any other name for his own benefit or for the
benefit of any other person.
The allegation made
in the complaint filed by the respondent was that while they were representing
Smt. Yellamma in the litigation filed by her against Green Fields Plot Owners
Association, the appellants persuaded him to enter into an agreement in
partnership with their minor son and wife respectively for purchase of the land
belonging to Smt. Yellamma and others and then settled the matter between Smt.
Yellamma and others on the one hand and Green Fields Plot Owners Association on
the other and in this manner his cause was adversely affected.
In our view, the
aforementioned allegations cannot, by any stretch of imagination, constitute an
act prohibited by Rule 22. Indeed, it is not even the respondent's case that
the appellants submitted any bid or they tried to purchase any property sold in
the execution of a decree or order in a suit, appeal or other proceeding in
which they were professionally engaged. Therefore, the finding recorded by the
Bar Council of India that the appellants are guilty of violating Rule 22 of the
Rules cannot be sustained.
appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Bar Council of India is