<p>The Supreme Court has said that a lawyer, who plays fraud with the Constitution and goes on to cheat his client, does not have a right to practice in courts. A person who dupes his clients cannot be permitted to be on advocates' roll, it added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan made the oral observations after it was pointed out to the court that an advocate, B N Shivanna, who practised in High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and was debarred for life by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC)has been shown leniency by the Bar Council of India. The apex regulatory body reduced the KSBC's punishment to merely 18-month suspension.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Advocates B K Sampath Kumar and Balaji Srinivasan, representing a multinational seed company, Advanta India Ltd (now UPL Limited) challenged the decision of the Bar Council of India.</p>.<p class="bodytext">They contended that Shivanna was engaged as retainer but he falsely told the company that several criminal cases have been filed in the courts at Hubballi, Mysuru, Chitradurga, Ballari, Sandur, Raichur etc for supplying spurious and sub-standard seeds. Thereafter, he charged the company Rs 10,000 for each case towards court fees payable to one S Gauri, who is none other than his mother-in-law, to file a petition before the High Court of Karnataka for quashing the proceedings.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He was also accused of forging a judgement from the high court, quashing as many as 341 criminal cases.</p>.<p class="bodytext">After the company officials found that Shivanna had played fraud with them, they filed a complaint with the high court, which intitiated suo motu contempt proceedings and held him guilty on August 18, 2004. The apex court had in its judgement on March 14, 2011 dismissed his appeal and directed him to serve the six-month jail term with Rs 2,000 fine under the Contempt of Court Act.</p>.<p class="bodytext">On Monday, the bench said, "A person like him cannot be on advocates' roll. In so far as the misconduct was concerned, that has been proved. That is the end of it." After making these oral observations, the court reserved its judgement in the matter.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said that a lawyer, who plays fraud with the Constitution and goes on to cheat his client, does not have a right to practice in courts. A person who dupes his clients cannot be permitted to be on advocates' roll, it added.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan made the oral observations after it was pointed out to the court that an advocate, B N Shivanna, who practised in High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and was debarred for life by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC)has been shown leniency by the Bar Council of India. The apex regulatory body reduced the KSBC's punishment to merely 18-month suspension.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Advocates B K Sampath Kumar and Balaji Srinivasan, representing a multinational seed company, Advanta India Ltd (now UPL Limited) challenged the decision of the Bar Council of India.</p>.<p class="bodytext">They contended that Shivanna was engaged as retainer but he falsely told the company that several criminal cases have been filed in the courts at Hubballi, Mysuru, Chitradurga, Ballari, Sandur, Raichur etc for supplying spurious and sub-standard seeds. Thereafter, he charged the company Rs 10,000 for each case towards court fees payable to one S Gauri, who is none other than his mother-in-law, to file a petition before the High Court of Karnataka for quashing the proceedings.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He was also accused of forging a judgement from the high court, quashing as many as 341 criminal cases.</p>.<p class="bodytext">After the company officials found that Shivanna had played fraud with them, they filed a complaint with the high court, which intitiated suo motu contempt proceedings and held him guilty on August 18, 2004. The apex court had in its judgement on March 14, 2011 dismissed his appeal and directed him to serve the six-month jail term with Rs 2,000 fine under the Contempt of Court Act.</p>.<p class="bodytext">On Monday, the bench said, "A person like him cannot be on advocates' roll. In so far as the misconduct was concerned, that has been proved. That is the end of it." After making these oral observations, the court reserved its judgement in the matter.</p>
