In The Matter Of B. Muniswami Naidu, B.A., B.L., High Court Vakil, Chittoor Vs. On 06 October, 1925

Open iDraf

In The Matter Of B. Muniswami Naidu, B.a., B.l., High Court Vakil, Chittoor v.

In The Matter Of B. Muniswami Naidu, B.a., B.l., High Court Vakil, Chittoor
v.

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No. | 06-10-1925

The charges framed, if they were substantiated would prove no more than negligence on the part of the Vakils clerk. It is only fair to the Vakil to say that he has throughout accepted civil responsibility for his clerks negligence to the extent of any proved loss in consequence of it by the client. But it has been laid down clearly in England in the case of G. M. C. (in the proceedings against Mr. Mayor Cooks, a Solicitor) 86 Law Times, 468, and also by a Bench of this Court in a judgment delivered on the 7th December, 1923 In the Matter of Dr. T. C. K. Kurup, Bar-at-Law, Advocate, High Court, Madras , the Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Phillips, and Ramesam, JJ., that negligence by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we are therefore able to say that there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr. Munuswami Naidu.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties T.R. Venkatarama Sastri, Advocate-General, P. Venkataramana Rao for Vakil, T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar for Vakils' Association, Advocates.

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VICTOR MURRAY COUTTS TROTTER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BEASLEY

Eq Citation

1926 MWN 412

96 IND. CAS. 685

(1926) 50 MLJ 399

AIR 1926 MAD 568

LQ/MadHC/1925/426

HeadNote

Bar Practice and Etiquette — Professional Misconduct — Negligence — Charges framed against a Vakil, if substantiated, would prove no more than negligence on the part of his clerk — Held, negligence by itself is not professional misconduct — There must enter the element of moral delinquency — No case to investigate and no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon the Vakil — English and Indian decisions cited