"Gross Professional Misconduct": Allahabad HC Orders Enquiry Against Advocate For Printing His Name On Property Sale-Purchase Ad

The Allahabad High Court last week ordered the State Bar Council to hold an inquiry against an Advocate whose name was mentioned on advertising leaflets for property sale, purchase,  resolution of disputes, etc. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

Calling this gross professional misconduct, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi ordered that a copy of its order be sent to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh along with a copy of the leaflet for taking necessary action in the matter after holding an inquiry.

The bench came across the leaflet in question while dealing with the bail application of one Satya Prakash Sharma who has been booked in a cheating case related to the sale of a piece of property.

The allegations, in brief, are that the bail applicant had proposed to the informant to sell his land, pursuant to which, the informant gave him a total of 53 Lakh rupees (2+10+41) in three installments. However, as soon as the bail applicant got the third installment of Rs. 41 Lakhs in his bank account, he ran away and did not present himself for execution and registration of the sale deed.

Pursuant to this, an FIR was lodged against him under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC and he was arrested. Now, seeking bail in the matter, the accused moved to the High Court.

In his defense, he argued before the Court that he had sold away his land in favor of one Rakesh Agarwal for which Rs. 45 Lakhs were paid as sale consideration, and it had been agreed that Rs. 43,00,000/- will be given by the purchaser after he would sell away the land by making plots in it.

Thereafter, it was submitted before the Court that the purchaser Rakesh Agarwal executed a sale deed in favor of Mukul Agarwal (the advocate in question against whom the inquiry has been ordered by the court), who is the real brother of the informant and the amount transferred by the informant in the applicant's account is in furtherance of the aforesaid agreement.

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court observed that prima facie the dispute was regarding payment of consideration for the execution of a sale deed and non-execution of a sale deed by the informant, however, there was no registered agreement to sell the property between the informant and the applicant.

Further, the Court also noted that the dispute between them appeared to be of a civil nature, therefore, noting that the co-accused has already been granted bail and the applicant has no previous criminal history, the Court found it appropriate to grant him bail.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court last month directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into and take suitable action in accordance with the law against an Advocate for allegedly running a business. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

The matter came to light while the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was dealing with the bail plea of an accused, booked for dishonestly withdrawing money from the account of a business firm, owned by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, an Advocate.

Case title - Satya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 532

Click Here To Read/Download Order