You are on page 1of 2

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

D. C. APPEAL NO. 40/2012

A. Appellant Versus Respondent

Present:

Shri Bhupinder Singh Rathore, Chairman

Shri Satish A. Deshmukh, Member

Shri Ashish Deshmukh, Member

The Advocates Act, 1961 (Act No. 25 of 1961), Section 35-

Professional Misconduct-

Facts of the Case :

 The present appellant /complainant had engaged the respondent as his counsel in order
to file a civil suit challenging the Mutation No. 1042 dated 29-07-1979 and for that
purpose a fee of 5,000 were paid by the appellant /complainant in advance to
respondent and the remaining amount of 10,000 was to be paid by him after filing the
suit.

 The appellant requested for filing the suit in the court as a result of which respondent
completed the formalities of filing the suit such as obtaining the signature of appellant
on plaint and the appellant was advised to appoint some other counsel to file the suit in
court. Respondent further advised the appellant that he would appear on behalf of the
proforma defendant in said suit.

 The appellant following the advice of the respondent filed the suit on 15-12-2010 in the
same shape by applying fluid on the name of respondent typed on the plaint.

 The appellant saw a change in behaviour of the respondent who disclosed that that he
was not prepared to to contest the case of appellant for small fee of #15,000 as suit
property involved in the case was worth crores of rupees. The secrets of the case were
passed to opposite party by the respondent. Hence he committed professional
misconduct.

 In reply to the above, the respondent appraised the Bar Council of the state that present
complaint was out come of framed, conspiracy and betrayal of trusts. Haboo and
Chander Dev being the real brothers of complainant hatched a conspiracy to defame the
respondent.

 The same Appellant/ complainant filed the present appeal challenging the impugned
order dated 06-05-2012 on the ground that order challenge was passed on conjectures
and Disciplinary Committee did not follow the Law as envisaged in Advocates Act.

Issue framed :

 (i) whether from the contents of the complaint any case professional misconduct is
made out against the respondent , and if so what is its effect ?

 (ii) relief

Findings of BCI DC :

 Adverting back to the merits of appeal, the argument of the both the parties were heard
at length.

 As per the appellant , there is a sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on the
file that appellant had engaged the respondent for filing his case in court.

 As per the version of the respondent, complaint filed by the appellant was absolutely
false and had been filed to harass, humiliate and defame him.

 Committee thoroughly went through the pleadings and evidence (oral and
documentary) led by both the parties and after hearing the arguments advanced by
both the parties, reached the conclusion that appellant had never engaged the counsel
for filing the civti suit as alleged by the appellant in the complaint.

Order of BCI DC :

 The order of the State Bar Council on issue No. 1 is hereby affirmed and appeal is hereby
dismissed being devoid of any merits with cost of 20,000 out of which 5,000 shall be
deposited with the Welfare Fund of the Bar Council of India and the remaining amount
of 15,000 shall be paid to the respondent.