Sudhendu Prakash Gautam vs S.L. Chaudhary

1
(REPORTABLE)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 791
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 7171/2012
SUDHENDU PRAKASH GAUTAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
S.L. CHAUDHARY Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. The present appeal under Section 38 of the
Advocates Act, 1961 would call in question the order
dated 21.07.2012, passed by the Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of India in Tr. Case No. 118 of 2008
allowing the complaint of the respondent-complainant and
suspending the appellant-Advocate from practice for a
period of one year.
2. By an interim order dated 15.10.2012 passed by
this Court, the said order of suspension of the appellant
has been stayed and thus, it has not been given effect
to.

3. Appellant was a lawyer engaged by one M/s Recon
Copier System Private Limited against whom, the
respondent filed a case in the Court of Ms. Deepa Sharma
(AJJ), Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (Labour
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NISHA KHULBEY
Date: 2026.08.04
16:43:36 IST
Reason:
Court). The respondent/ complainant lodged a complaint
with the Bar Council of Delhi on 30.08.2005 alleging that
after his application was dismissed by the concerned

2
Labour Court, the appellant caught the respondent/
complainant from his collar; gave a beating and abused
and threatened to the kill the respondent/complainant in
the Court premises (toilet). Further, appellant also
forced the respondent/ complainant to withdraw the
complaint which he has filed against him, threatening
that he will be removed from this world and will forget
to enter in the Court.
4. According to the respondent/complainant, he
lodged a Police complaints with the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi on 28.04.2005 and 18.08.2005 respectively
and thereafter, the present complaint with the Bar
Council of Delhi was submitted. The complaint was
eventually taken up for consideration by the Bar Council
of India.
5. Referring to the impugned order, learned
counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
was not provided proper opportunity of hearing inasmuch
as, when the matter was taken up for consideration on
07.07.2012, appellant moved an application for
adjournment which was refused and the matter was
instantly taken up on the same day.
6. It appears that the complaint lodged by the
respondent/ complainant was earlier dismissed on
24.10.2009 only on the ground that since the appellant/
advocate was not engaged by the respondent/ complainant
but, was his opposite counsel, no case for continuing/

3
contemning the proceedings for committing professional
misconduct is made out. This order of 24.10.2009 was
later on recalled vide order dated 09.07.2011 by allowing
the respondent/complainant's review petition and
thereafter, notices were issued to both the parties for
hearing on 07.07.2012 when prayer for adjournment was
refused.
7. It appears that appellant was not heard
properly by the Bar Council of India when his prayer for
adjournment was rejected on 07.07.2012. However, we are
not inclined to remit the matter back to the Bar Council
of India as almost 21 years have elapsed after submission
of complaint by the respondent/ complainant to the Bar
Council of Delhi. It is also to be noticed that the
appellant was not a counsel for the respondent-
complainant before the Labour Court and thus, there is no
allegation of any professional misconduct qua the Court
proceedings. The allegation of professional misconduct is
based on the incident that happened inside the Court
premises on the date when the respondent-complainant’s
application was dismissed by the Labour Court.
8. For the incident wherein, the appellant has
threatened the respondent/complainant, a Police complaint
was also lodged, as is mentioned in respondent’s
complaint to the Bar Council of Delhi.
9. Thus, the culpability part of the incident
which happened in the Court premises, was already

4
informed to the Police and insofar as this part is
concerned, the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of
India had no role to play. However, at the same time,
behaviour of a lawyer in the Court premises is one such
important factor which attracts the allegation of
misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961. Every lawyer
has a duty to act decently in the Court premises not only
with his own clients but, also towards the lawyers
appearing from the other side and also to the parties
against whom he is appearing. Any indecent behavior
inside the Court premises can be taken cognizance of by
the concerned State Bar Council or the Bar Council of
India, as the case may be, and the case would not be
thrown out only on this ground alone.
10. Having considered the entire fact situation of
the case and the fact basis which proceedings have been
initiated against the appellant, which concerns his
indecent behaviour only and does not concern with the
case proceedings or proceedings inside the Court, we deem
it appropriate to dispose of the Civil Appeal by issuing
warning to the appellant, Sudhendu Prakash Gautam, that
he shall always behave properly in the Court premises
while dealing with the lawyer on the opposite side, his
own client; as also the party on the opposite side as
well. The order passed by the Bar Council of India is
modified to the above extent.

5
11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the
afore-stated terms.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
......................J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
.....................J.
(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR)
New Delhi
30-07-2026

6
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.13 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 7171/2012
SUDHENDU PRAKASH GAUTAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
S.L. CHAUDHARY Respondent(s)

Date : 30-07-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For Appellant(s) :
Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR
Mr. Kushagra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Saransh Maheshwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Nidhi, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Om Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Application (I.A. No.69425/ 2013) seeking
substitution of service is allowed.
2. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the
reportable signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(NISHA KHULBEY) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
COURT MASTER(SH) COURT MASTER(NSH)
(reportable signed order is placed on the file)