Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1997(3&4)IBR207
This is an interesting matter in which the parties were fighting .on preliminaries rather than going deep into the issues involved. The matter involved a complaint lodged with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by the present appellant to the effect that certain applications in the form of complaints addressed to various authorities by the respondent amounted to "other" misconduct on the part of the respondent. When the matter was before the State Bar Council, it passed a resolution to the effect that there was prima face case of misconduct and therefore it was placed before a Committee for the final adjudication. Before the D.C. of the State Bar Council a preliminary issue was raised by the respondent that there was no nexus or proximity in his standing as a lawyer and the application made by him to various authorities and therefore the Committee could not go into the merit being sans jurisdiction. The point was upheld by the committee and by its order dated 10-8-1996 it dismissed the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1997(3&4)IBR201
Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint against the respondent on the allegations that he engaged the respondent to file a case in respect of the theft committed in his house. It is alleged against the respondent that the respondent gave him a draft of the complaint which was sent to the Commissioner of Police and other authorities by the complainant. The respondent also issued notice to the SHO Police Station, Lajpat Nager, New Delhi, on behalf of the complainant for supplying the enquiry report. In respect of the complaint lodged by the complainant against Mool Chand and sons who have allegedly committed the theft in the house. It is further alleged that till issuing of the notice no fees was settled between the complainant and the respondent. But the respondent told that he would charge minimum amount of fees. It is further alleged that on 8-12-199.3 the complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent and also gave his documents for filing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1998(1)IBR153
This is an appeal against the order of State Bar Council wherein the appellant was suspended for a period of six months from practice.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on .16-5-1981 and Rs. 60,000/- on 4-10-1981 to Rao and Raju Builders Pvt." Ltd., Hyderabad. This amount was paid to construct a three bed room house on the plot allotted to the complainant.As the said Builders failed to construct the house, the respondent met P.S. Rao Managing Director of Rao and Raju Builders Pvt. Ltd. to settle the matter amicably. The said P.S. Rao suggested to the respondent to approach the appellant A practicing Advocate at Hyderabad to seek his advice. The respondent met him in March, 1984 and then appellant advised him to file a suit for recovery of amount from M/s Rao and Raju Builders Pvt. Ltd. The respondent paid Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant for filing the said recovery suit and the appellant obtained his signatures of the plaint prepared by him, That the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1998(1)IBR139
1. Proceedings under section 35 of the Advocates' Act 1961 was No. 59/1989 before the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the State Council prima facie felt satisfied and, inferred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee in its General Body meeting held on 12-8-1989 which shows that on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the charged Advocate, it could not dispose of the matter within the stipulated period as contemplated u/s 36B of the Advocates' Act and ultimately the matter came up before the Bar Council of India and registered as BCI Tr. Case No.40/1991. Perusal of the, order sheet shows that in spite of several notices sent to the charged advocate, he not participate in the proceedings and consequently matter proceeded ex-parte against him. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council of India in its meeting held on 13th January, 1996 framed the following issues:-a. Whether the Respondent has stated any falsehood before the i Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Nainital for illegal gain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1998(1)IBR135
1. On .complaint being filed by one R, son of late Shri uddendu Saheb, the State Bar Council prima facie felt satisfied taking cognizance under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, registered Case No. 46 of 1991. After providing sufficient opportunities to the parties for leading evidence and hearing the State Bar Council vide its judgment and order dated 14.3.1993 was pleased to debar the respondent-appellant Advocate from practice a period of one.year under Section 35 (3) (c) of the Advocates Act, aggrieved against which the present appeal was preferred by the respondent Advocate. At the time of appeal the Bar Council was pleased to defer* the sentence awarded by the State Bar Council which has continued till this date. The complainant-respondent came up with the case that he had executed a registered sale deed with an option to re-purchase the property situate in village Deeravalli in favour of one Lanka Samba Siva Rao. However, he continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1997(1)IBR271
This is, an appeal from the order of the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh dated 13-7-1991 in C.C. No. 21/1990 by which the present' appellant was. found guilty of professional and other misconduct and his name was struck off from the roll of Advocates maintained by the State under Provisions of Section 35(3) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The allegations against the appellant were that Sri Radhakishan, S/o Shankar Singh, was the owner of some, houses in Singavaram Village, Alampur (W), Mahaboobnagar Distt. These houses were submerged in Srisailam Project and ultimately a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,533.40 ps. came to be deposited by the Govt, in Sub-Court, Gadwal. The present appellant had come to be engaged on behalf of the said Radh'akdshan in O.P. No. 1788 of 1984 in which the order of compensation came to be passed. It is claimed by the present respondent that she used to accompany her husband, namely the said Radhakishan, whenever j ; he would meet the present appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1997(3&4)IBR193
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 2-4-94 rendered by the Disciplinary Committee, Indore Bench, Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh in complaint Case No. 67/1992 wherein the SAN AD of the appellant has been suspended for a period of 7 years on the grounds of professional misconduct.2. The gravamen of the charge against the present appellant is that one Subbash Jain brother of the respondent complainant is a convict. He has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and is sentenced 1,0 undergo life imprisonment. Thereafter he applied under section 2 01 the Madhya Pradesh Prisoners' Release on Probation Act', 1954 and the matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench and the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 8-1-1992 dismissed M.P. No. 14/92 with the following observations:-"By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to virtually challenge an order dated 30-10-91 passed in N.P. No. 87/1991 ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1996(1)IBR155
APPEARANCE:For the complainant Mr. Denzil D' Mello.For the Respondent None.Per Shri S.K. Padhi, Member.This proceeding has been initiated at the instance of a complaint made by "C". Since this application could not be disposed of within the stipulated period by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, it has been transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961.We heard the counsel of the complainant Sri Denzil D' Mello at length; and perused the submissions and the evidence adduced in this case. The complainant has examined one witness i.e. himself. The respondent has not examined any witness.The gist of the case of the complainant- as revealed in his pleadings and evidence is that the respondent was acting as. his counsel for a property dispute at Goa. The suit in question was filed by the complainant as plaintiff on 15th March, 1982, in the court of the Rent Controller for eviction. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1996(1)IBR152
This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 1993 passed by the Disciplinary 'Committee of the Bar council of Himachal Pradesh in Case No.4/1991 suspending the licence of the appellant-advocate for a period of three months. The Committee heard this appeal on 26-5-1995 at Shimla. Since Sri. Jamshed Pardiwala the third member could not be. present on that date, therefore this appeal has been now fixed today for deliberations amongst all the three members.-All the three members are present today and we have held' deliberations amongst, ourselves after perusing the entire original records and have considered the respective contentions of the parties. From our deliberations the following points emerge for determination in this appeal.Point No. 1: Whether the order under appeal is liable to be set aside?Point No. 2: Final order.Findings on the above points:Point No. 1: YesPoint No. 2 : Appeal accepted. Reasons fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
Reported in : 1996(1)IBR135
This is an appeal arising out of the Order dated 7.6.1990 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council in D.C.E. No. 18/89 dismissing the complaint and exonerating the respondent. The brief facts leading- to the complaint were as follows.The complainant is a son-in-law of one late Mary Raymond. The complainant was the general Power of Attorney during the life time of Mrs. Raymond and was the legal representative of her estate. The respondent was the lawyer representing Mrs. Raymond and had prepared a Will for her. The said Will was dated 1.7.68. It was kept in the safe custody with the respondent and the receipt to that effect was pa3sed by him on 5.7.1968. Subsequently This Raymond changed her lawyer and engaged Mr. George da Costa as her Advocate who requested the respondent to hand over the Will, which request was refused by the respondent. This happened in 1978 where after Mrs. Raymond prepared a new will be her new lawyer on 4.1.1982. The present complai...
Tag this Judgment!