Question

Retention of money deposited with advocate for the decree holder even after execution proceedings was held as an instance of misconduct in which case

• A. In Re DC Saxena
• B. M Veerendra Rao v Tek Chand
• C. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry
• D. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India

Hint:

An advocate's relationship with a client is fiduciary in nature. Any act involving dishonesty with the client's money, such as misappropriation or wrongful retention, is treated as serious professional misconduct by the Bar Council and the courts.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The fastest way here is to isolate the specific wrongdoing, keeping a client's decree money after execution had ended, and see which case matches that fact pattern.

1. In Re DC Saxena: Concerns contempt through scandalizing a judge, not client money.
2. M Veerendra Rao v Tek Chand: A professional misconduct case, but not the one built around retained decree proceeds.
3. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry: Concerns an advocate proposing to bribe a judge on the client's behalf, a corruption issue rather than fund retention.
4. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India: The advocate kept the decree holder's money even after execution concluded and did not return it despite requests, which the Supreme Court treated as gross professional misconduct through breach of trust. This is an exact match to the facts given.

Matching the wrongdoing to its source case, the correct answer is Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India.

Answer 2

Another angle is to focus on the underlying duty that was breached, an advocate's fiduciary duty to promptly account for and hand over client money, and identify which case enforces exactly that duty on these facts.

1. In Re DC Saxena: The duty at stake there is respect for the dignity of the court, not a fiduciary duty over client funds.
2. M Veerendra Rao v Tek Chand: While concerning misconduct generally, it is not the authority tied to the specific duty of returning decree proceeds after execution.
3. Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry: The duty breached there is the duty of integrity toward the judicial process itself, by proposing improper influence on a judge, not a duty to hand over money.
4. Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India: The duty enforced here is precisely the fiduciary obligation to account for and return client money once its purpose, in this case the execution proceedings, has been completed. Failing to do so was held to be gross professional misconduct.

Since the fiduciary duty over decree money is the exact duty enforced in the fourth case, the correct answer is Prahlad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India.