A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This disciplinary case, In re: Shri ‘M’, an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, presents a compelling exploration of professional misconduct in the legal profession. It centres around an Advocate on Record who withdrew surplus client funds without consent and appropriated them as personal fees, without lodging a bill for taxation or informing the client. The Supreme Court of India, through a Special Bench, meticulously evaluated procedural norms under Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended), and analysed the evidentiary contradictions and ethical obligations governing advocates. The Court determined that the Advocate’s actions violated the fiduciary duties he owed his client, treating himself as both judge and beneficiary of the client’s funds, without adhering to professional protocols. The case reaffirmed the doctrine that an Advocate acts as a trustee for client monies not expressly marked for fees, and the principles established in In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate, (1955) 1 SCR 490 were followed. Consequently, the Advocate was suspended from practice for two years. The judgment delineates the obligations of Advocates under common law, Supreme Court procedural rules, and ethical frameworks, underscoring that any appropriation of funds without express or implied consent constitutes grave misconduct.

Keywords: Professional Misconduct, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court Rules, Fiduciary Duty, Disciplinary Jurisdiction

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: In re: Shri ‘M’, an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
ii) Case Number: Not Specified
iii) Judgement Date: 17 October 1956
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice Jagannadhadas, Justice Venkatarama Ayyar, and Justice B. P. Sinha
vi) Author: Justice Jagannadhadas
vii) Citation: [1956] SCR 812
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended)
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None mentioned
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Legal Ethics, Disciplinary Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Professional Conduct

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from a complaint filed by Attar Singh against Advocate Shri ‘M’, formerly an Agent of the Supreme Court, who later became an Advocate on Record under the Supreme Court Rules amended in 1954. The proceedings commenced under Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, following allegations of professional misconduct. The key charge was that the Advocate withdrew and appropriated surplus court-deposited funds (Rs. 242-1-9) without informing or obtaining the client’s consent. The Special Bench, constituting a disciplinary forum, adopted a modified warrant-case procedure for the enquiry, rooted in natural justice and akin to Section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as amended), due to the absence of a codified procedure under the Supreme Court Rules for such matters.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Attar Singh had filed a criminal appeal to the Supreme Court in 1950. He engaged Sardar Raghbir Singh, a Senior Advocate, who brought in Shri Madan as Junior Counsel and Shri ‘M’ as the Agent. Attar Singh paid Rs. 600 as a consolidated fee to Sardar Raghbir Singh, to be distributed among all three professionals. Additionally, he provided Rs. 750 as printing charges, which were deposited with the Punjab High Court. After printing expenses, Rs. 242-1-9 remained as surplus. Shri ‘M’ withdrew this amount in 1952, without informing or seeking the consent of Attar Singh. The client only discovered the withdrawal when he contacted the Punjab High Court in 1955. Shri ‘M’ first denied the withdrawal, later claimed a lien, and appropriated the amount as fees. At no point had he submitted a fee bill for taxation nor provided formal notice to the client.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Shri ‘M’, as an Advocate on Record, was entitled to appropriate surplus client funds without consent.
ii) Whether a lien over client money can be exercised without lodging a bill for taxation or giving intimation to the client.
iii) Whether the actions amounted to professional misconduct under Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended).

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the petitioner argued that he had received only partial payment of his fees, and the client had promised to pay a reasonable balance later. He claimed the sum withdrawn from the High Court was lawfully retained under a lien for unpaid fees. He submitted that under the terms of the vakalatnama, he was authorised to act in the best interests of the client, including matters of financial appropriations incidental to proceedings. He maintained that his conduct did not breach professional ethics but represented a common, implied understanding between lawyer and client in criminal appeals.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsel for Attar Singh submitted that no agreement existed to pay Shri ‘M’ more than Rs. 100 as part of the fixed consolidated fee. He denied receiving any notice of surplus refund or any demand for additional fees. It was argued that Shri ‘M’s conduct in denying the receipt of funds and then later asserting a right over them without prior intimation constituted a clear breach of professional responsibility and fiduciary trust. It was further contended that the vakalatnama did not authorise such financial transactions without consent, especially as the funds were meant for a specific court-related expense.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended): Governs disciplinary jurisdiction and actions for misconduct by Advocates.
ii) Order IV Rules 31 and 32 of the unamended Rules: Earlier framework for Agents, prescribing standards of professional responsibility.
iii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 251-A: Procedure for warrant cases, applied by analogy.
iv) Common Law Doctrine of Lien and Trusteeship: As elaborated in Cordery’s Law Relating to Solicitors (4th Ed.) and Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd Ed., Vol. 31).

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Court held that the Advocate had a fiduciary duty akin to a trustee in handling client funds. Any exercise of lien over client funds without client consent or taxation of fees violated professional ethics. Appropriating funds without prior disclosure or accounting amounted to professional misconduct under Order IV Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules. The judgment emphasized that advocates cannot act as judges in their own cause by deciding unilaterally the quantum of fees due to them.

b. OBITER DICTA 
The Court observed that even in absence of codified procedural rules, disciplinary matters must follow principles of natural justice. It reiterated that higher standards apply to Advocates practising in the Supreme Court due to their privileged position under the Constitution and judicial hierarchy.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Advocates must treat surplus client funds as held in trust unless earmarked explicitly as fees.

• Any appropriation of client funds must be preceded by notice, consent, or a taxed bill.

• Absence of express rules does not reduce ethical obligations imposed by common law or the Supreme Court’s inherent powers.

• Even when a lien is claimed, the client must be informed of the fund’s availability and the intention to exercise the lien.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision in In re: Shri ‘M’ sets a benchmark in disciplinary jurisprudence regarding professional misconduct and financial propriety among Advocates. The judgment reinforces the principles that underpin fiduciary duties and trust-based relationships in legal practice. By invoking the doctrines of trusteeship, professional ethics, and procedural fairness, the Court ensured that Advocates cannot misuse their professional standing for unjust enrichment. It is an authoritative precedent on how disciplinary rules must be interpreted to uphold the honour and integrity of the legal profession.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. In the matter of Mr. G., a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, (1955) 1 SCR 490

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended), Order IV Rule 30
ii. Supreme Court Rules (unamended), Order IV Rules 31 and 32
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 251-A
iv. Cordery’s Law Relating to Solicitors (4th Edition)
v. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2nd Edition, Vol. 31, para 265