Opinions _OF_ an eam counter, PeoressionA _ Msconcuct eae ease no. 4 Smt, Stya ea v Sita. Ram Bet rust, Solectecl Judgerrent» Pbuee . p28 nets oF tte case. an advocah. wrthtans am decratal amounts det a ok paid > the conplatnant nor ony accounts were qusnyshed suite ond & was Ae complaint wos yd, Jom the djetnany committer of MP State far Countl by Sms siya Bai agoshse tho espondont advocaty . Sw Sita Rasn, Singh - Qe omplaint wat tat the advorat, was argaged by te complainant Yor ling money Puts ages 1B pomom ard pantng the decree th extewtion procendingn, th docratal amount 19a deported whith was withdrawn rom e0> by the ‘espondent odvount, buk it wat wot paid to te tomplainant and he did mot qurmnyah the aeount.abo alte fone #4 that the a ee fe tal geen an Secale ad uct ve etrattin as a pie ed Probert oe the other Pletnant 09 some 4 dhe He contended that etthdrawn rom the. og SOR oh lancet, oe Os Per woeord the amount: enon applicant rom the adjust towards court Weoverabio OppLtaRE and other expenses OPINION OF 860 ( State eax Couns) me ees and mottar wat tonsdeved 40 Bet under Seck0o 3668 A tho Advocates Ack —onomA! oF Bef ( Bar tounctl of dndin) Gra commeltte after asctrtasning tw dacks opinad that tho pla of vespondant that the Semoun throu by hin had bean adjusted woth the tontane of compan towarda the: court Yoos and other 2xponsch wor not found trun and mot atepted and et found guuthy. © professtonal myntonduck yor legat rekainvng tho omount and worded tho punyshmont . Levene eee PP PPP PETE EatBes mS Beg a) me Pn mas Ss a) Raa a Rs mag mg os ma Ji wit esac Tudgoments 07 Profemionat | eunies pe 26 Fnets_0F de | ense 1 Mo Aik the complainant was a mony lander | She sngaged the Respondent Advocal — amodl See atta Ram Singh ab ber coursal Mor ling any money ute agairat, hae borrower and Aeveral euite wore deevard Sho post the advocates court eos, Counsel» dans ard othr other exponsoa + ha tomplainone alleged thot tho eatd advorat wed © etthdraw dacwabal amounts Yrom the. courye yrom md to time withauk tho tonuent and. Knowledge @ the complaihant . $. dnitially ty his written statement the advocati therfore th amended statement he denced te. OPINCON OF BAR CounteiZ oF INDIA Me Pyouplinary —cormmctige of the Bc? camo. the tonclukon tha though tha 2xack amount drasool oy the advecae waa not proved admitted that he had withdyawe the amount butHole to account enepite of the *tapondent voay Pancahmant: e wortherew SOE PG I oa PRN ACES Mie Sita cies. Barer ie Boia foster Willpstotsnie toes Complaunane MEMES paris eR kde manta: Gna commiting: Hid that’ tha emt ok tng case would “ba pail by Yadocall) wots “ond) month; Yatting which ha hal to wnder go puapension Yor ena year { Nee eeeeeeePPPPPPPPIEPTEEEEEEEE SES.oo... Case No. 3 Sooratery , karnataka. Khadi Gramidyjog Somputata, Sangh, Gangurt + Hubli v 3.8. kulkoeni Bet Trust, selected Sudgermonts 09 Frofessional ethics, pe he “insg of que CASE ne tomplainant engaged adverati yor Aihing exeeubion procaednga compotant court yor the exteutlon of Covtain decree ebtaned th evita 2, Qe tomplainant alleges that tha *eipondent advocalz yiled the exeuuhion proceadings ly the Competent Court and be hod ~ecerad ditternt the veapondent cmounks toward tha decratal amounts 3. Gye eomplasnank giled a. complaint bajore tho kowonatoka State bar Counci| under sechion 36 4 Advocate Ack 1961 alleging that he ‘rappondant advetal has rvfsappropreated . OPINION OF STATE GAR CoUNCIL fp the rattan could not ddepoaed ef within tho prseribad statutory period ct wos branstewad ear tounedl of Srdih Under Seckion B68 OF CECEEEELOCCEECRELEITI 2120101Ac oration ny 14a ORDER op a PE BAR coma ag a Me 6, to is Bae couneel % odin dourd ay Poank has sumed weeded 4 alter baw pes Proving tint Nees ii as “Aperdent 40 vaprasent Mm the exeeushon, proceed decree Pye aang cut of Ae diab) ares amount wns not pard to te Parshmant Ordered tha he ke puspendecl drom prostie der a ponied of Ore Year trom the of the eeaipt of the onder dato. | AEE De PPPTEE ETH LeneMALO OOLSLOCOOOCICUIIL J 1, Gy ees case Myo. MS. Pakwardhan v WY. karmawkare ct Trust, Selected Sudgaments on Professtboat thins, p. #2: zaers OF te CASE tha complashant. deatted to purchase oo acres of tard through a seat veptati dor undertolang an agvizultural developmant preety forming a sooperative pocaty 4. dre complainant engaged tha ~vzspordant for compating tha neeeyaary egal gemalties, He woos paul) Bs 248,000 Jor tha purchase of fond. stamp diky, ‘regsbrakion chawges and other 24porstt 2, Owe tapondank theprka of tre oynest, ud not wander tha account and did mot pay the balance amount: Lying with hrm 4. nekally the eapondent advocati danced that ba hod veceived the Pa amounk but vthimataly , ak the stage of andonca admitted that & all ho hed veerived @ 245,000 trom tho tomelauhani Te wos obo Yound by the tommittgr trak he fad mot handled tro work, >OPINION OF StATe Bar touNeiL a tommelize tas opined tak & a Oe duhy ote copa ap Gertie money. 3t 4 a pated tons See NW 00 advocati ait 40° erauhtain proper account F his cttentis money he ts guilly of Prefewronat myniigatect According to the wule of bar council of Area makas clears that mo advocal: can holed is cliante moray his handle, the epondent woas quilly @} profasstonal mustonduck —Punghmant Mra tommettee ordered that the. cence 10 proction and also ordered to “raspoedlon b> be auspended dor 5 yoarge adveca to ~adund Rs 83,000 with cnterast @ toy per annum Qa paved amount was mot vesurded 40 prockiee an » hs Juconeo, was to be Yurthor, suspended dow additional period of 5 yease Cost of Rs 10,009 was tmporod on the. advocate, , I Eitttit! repereetHtLtittt bene |oes ie Mrepinary Ackbn on tim | MSIOM 08 Soin. bap count Oe tose ead nop Sepoed of va frdia Under Section 6B. APPEAL 90 BAR counei oF NDIA PECBION OF BAR tounctn oF -mipia Gna disciplinary committen on angpung Word thot the. vespondent adeenty was ending Wt power t ute a utter te an employer, Yegordsng tha conduck ef 0 parson and he wow yeund to be author @ the obsane duutters and opinod that wtspondonk advecaty gatled to dyichago) ha dutio ad an officer ef te court and he Yaited fo decharga ha | duties as a vosponsible poyson of ta sotiely —Penyshmant Me advoral. was pusperdad by the from proces jor a pened of 4 Gna tommatked tmponed a cost of Rs 10,000 over him to ba pad to the Complainanti __- rae _. ——_#~sil a / ease lo. 6 a Allahabad eanks v Gompsh Prasad vorna pet mest , Solected Sudgemants on Frofemenal | eens , p. (04 | nets oF ane case | 1. Ome complainant 4 Allahabod bask engaged | insh Prasad Verma dor ling the poverat monay Billa wm Uo courte, 2. Ore complainant tontended thak tha advocates royaapproprotad tha rnonay pas to thom th total Re 186IIh towards tro tourt feos eke. He abo contented tak 20 $0 uits wero not wogyterad. — | 3. Me tomplounant yiled a Complaint before Ginko bax tounalt under eeckbn 35 and claiming | rryund ef te afpranaid Aum and also prayed | | for taken —appropriny ackion , | _peeiston OF STATE GAR _Countett Gro dyrceplenary committea held that the | ‘respondent has mysappropriaked the amount ee joe Ot Ra 8 Uy ord was guilly 9 mot two tho putts after tolleeting the Yous qrom the complainant banks and ender peaking off tho nama of the advotali ILTELICCCCCEECELLICLLIELLE ee |tom be vole 4] Yo UP Bae council and Nerd the amount gf Rh 156, t14/- Punvshmont (2 Committee ordered gor the Pbdteing off te mame refund he Gf He advoeats: from “aha voll and amounk —- = sen en ope eeeeeCounce} wet Refosthan tapmed Paushment of CRM from praabeg APCB AR 70 eAR coimey, oF inpia re Prrciplnan —tommitton the Bar couneel Y dn, & SPPtaL tchanaed the punahment Punpshrnont SP PE Gt 9 tnpgnecl a’ puryphmenk a & Yeo» puspéiton oom Prackica alongwith coat of & S00 4 ba paid by the ~wapondent advocak 49 the ar courcil a} Sedat, pe rereee eet ees: eee se?= eg $$ case No. & Fret, Keshramy] Gomoars ii v rath 0. Mukashekoot Vishwa Sudgemente Profoys eet Aust, Solactad onal ethics, P1386 _toeas 5 of ae Ons _ | 1. tre complurant engaged ha egal to file avte © court. One domand at different tinas by the. te eppallant advo as the Gombay Hah " oppalont cdvocati be pastl fa a9,000/- total | eat we advocatc delayed ging 2 2uKt ond aio delayed dud mot pay Aus cout fee. He th erovteg tater applecaiin ond dus ‘9 te | | he uttered huge Looe 2, Ona complainant gave 0 unittan mottoes 10 \ tho appellant advocat, yor He eb of the | fret cnaballS sBbypeigushboby cattaine “oe | he could ngage Axponake donyer uk the lappallont | adverak did oe “spond _setrsion! Of _Stane ene cone _ cre dysuipunary toromittan of he Bar curl and Goa yound im quiity dor ailing put and nla Wim gully atti PELLICLE EL ECCCCL IEEE E EEL esProfons : sere ete PPPPPEPe Lite de tdét ral mssconduct Raryshmon %e advocate was Purpension of ticence APPERL 40 mpased —puryshoank of dor trae yeas BAR counctL oF anDin DECISION OF BAR, COUNRIE of “@NOIA Tre appellant advocate deepion of the De ef ear ard G00 beJoro tho Ben. He challenged to pou’ council of Mahavostrn challenged tha deeyaton on the ground tat thea ted been GO Wiotation of the principles af makural ustier One Opperplinarry torte otha. Bar Coune’! ef Sodio. Fold im quitly Jor committing proferstonal mysconduet: Pontshment Gna Dipuiplinary Committee @ the Bare touner! @ Sindiin modified the purphmont awarded by the Stati bar council Gre punyshmant @} puspenaten @ hin ticanea dor % yonye was ck ade He was only -veprimanded. Ye wos warned by the commiiter ch fubure he should mot torment any ype ef profesional mteonduct 293 4J). Ny ’ PoP TPES aoe APPEAL go BAR tomes oF com Deciston One. Dheiplinary Lommitton yound that the “Crpordent advocali iled falue cage wthout challenging or qpsstioning the vobidity of the comprise decree furyshment: We comauttze ordered puspansibn dor a Ferod 9} two yoave @® Prd allo mpaod a eit of Re tl000/- Payable te alevan complainant gach es 1000/- Loseassse srt TPPPPPrrirssiisssssligenof tte CASE 4 ef 1. Gy ahd cast Shed Gratapl Mornin ape a he foe nunal agasnat dont MP. fahela,Pecistony OF Ste BAR comer Me committy c omewittoe after *xOmining the. Yacke, Pa ihe ore ent are eee qty 4 Profexsionat myporduct a a penous mare, “We had forged the ordoe q te Count. Rarusheronte re ommnittge ordered moval of his ame Yrom the voll mamtamed by the ear council ef Dathi PEEOELI CULL HL HEE, L firey e772 t tt8 a i a en frofemconal ee ee ee aebeets of _Stne OAR tountein, nd coer seas a Gaede eee Sta bar council within one year, ther the, protendinge stood tronadovsd fa ae sounetl Seda unde Atobion 26 8 APPEAL 90 ene _countell. OF NDIA pecrston oF a” azT.$. Jadhav v ne ore ae Ain ae) 3 5 or ms nl 1. Gre tomplaioant ne 68 dor eto advocali 2 aspondent: Musto ta Aad no aut hon tri5 4 ‘ 3 3 3 e i prackiteee veo Page the edvoca that t. a ae ate lobar oe tag 4 Mt as gus vo se mn sa ti qecase No. 14 ee. 2 Rajendra Vv. Pal v “ns Mex ¥emandes and others nen Mut, Selected Sudgemante on Profesional eeigs P88 ' aERisiuor uasibanse ae ee 7 1. Me -tespondents that & Alex Fernandes and othase Mego wat | te appellant advorata \oo8—Deeist SIA i Ona Pjaurplinany — commit aa a. we Bat council ef Mahavasta and 600. gpurd him quilly of the professional miscondatel, —Ruryzhmone tro committe ondeved for ta vamoval 4 Wis ame yrom the voll of tha Bar counct! oh Moharashiva and 600. 0 “ines 00. tne twousn oF mor AS gag ae - aissicubes ye prpersdadedeté.Ve Rama a0 Fone oa a aa | nga Sodhay ond , a agent care he aesto 5 Bae ray ted a eomplain counet!| under echon 35 that tha who a prachting advoraki has “rm oe act which amounts fo profes oe : ecto OF STATE _6AR CoUNCIL : : ho case was mot Aopased of Py ty bax eoune’l within one yaar thon Heease No 18 An Advotali 4 Scare be Be. Howadara ond thane at (984 SC AHS acns of THe CASE: “ener of tHe _onse he wrmdik neg a sen cient Bat a sytney wat der remy Bs 20,09¢/- and the appellant om ten had Sc his Juevor eallenguel 22080000, Appeat Oo BAR COUNCIL Decision After tonatdenhg tha maker the ae counet! 9 Andi held tak the: appa anes co eee ioe Cn _Pangabrmante ae Va jak ausparded dor a panied ef three Hosier ah eeeadeddRergahmant Gar council of edi veduced eae ts’ bai councmyrn rare anct vupesed 3Nayearcoop Nohara na ae Se 488 ners of THe _ case Tok wagons. aga ee appellee rl tee case Wis Aonghtor 4rled vaan, on mente the case advorak. to under aaition Hee af CrPC wan dacidedl tn qavoun, op Ha daughter. 4, on aituse 55 pay the maintenance on reuttton proedigs uni mond ty we wiparbinbe dough | athig tho propety af ter Mbord 3, Gye wuapordin — qurthor atlags Wha he appellant eta lep onoeeae aiding Aaagaiten. wet: | a ynad by He daughter ef vespordant agpanat: or th thok CORE ted a complasnt to Stal eat, Cea ee | | Gairartan and oth | oo mapotint council UP under peckion 36 plaking that ho fas tommetted an ack profesional regatonduuct and paying to take dinciptinany action against “pecision OF Stave ene CopNcIL _ re Oyauiptinary commuter a the stok Bar coun] @ U.P condludod that the appallant was whith amounts > hin wEURULUETTEEVVET ITYprachee for 4 aaarded 4 100/- puspnded hiro Yor of 20 yeas Joease No. 12 _ Vikwamaditgar v Smt, Saméla Khatoon net trust, lected Tudgemonts on Profesnonal Ethics, pans peer FACES OF THE CASE L fa thi Codd the appellant, advocah got the pane a the emplainane on blanks vokalabnema and Wank water warked papers 3. ne womplainant bard2d ovar to btn tha eviginad pale-cleed yor mutalton, ve appallant ] x mot, gle te matatn ptt | 8. to. myaused tho vakotaznama and blank, paper pigeed by tha complainant: and yiled a conprompe decree om qavous, ha counsel, ard obtaind a compeonnya of bi other Shoslan Yadav. 4h. Gna Onginal sale dead handed over the complainant was ali wyjynod 6. ao pe hid tak Samia Fhatoon handed over dor the purpose to him by the Blank popes and vakalaknamd. @} wwutobion but branch qf brutt tne doumants were mypultyed Yor getting the. lard — transterved th favour of hd other, Sr’ Shoslan Yadav. |e. He committed —rupeonduct 0 04 > benefit his orn father and — torsequently , hiinaal —— Lae ad WEMUU CECE UTE CCC ey,\Wooy | oeuve se, Se ee One commitoe vs the = Bat counei! hold that tho appellant wos gucly af the Professional mubtonduuck. Panmant erent seer A ea Paved af 6 year , though reore aavaya. puruahmant = = = Sy = = 3ate 19a SC 282 Facts 1 One egtyphan ass ind eos cto tote prod ree Hi to be the ae ie weCASE No at Surendra Nath Mittal et Swaroop Bet trust, Selectad p.2te. Eacts_oF qe CASE Lf 4 hia cose tha “opondiant advocata. made iy the perakira park of the judgement Sudgemants on Professronal ethits mani} and dere by lng wea “a and’ Sat nberoat 5awea VT case No. 2% Tob Disouxa. v Baword Ani ie tay $C AAS ters Oe OE (at te cone the wusperdtent Gelaoet Rt“ Jodged te compluint with tha Kamatoka étali Car council allang at be appliant with wher the wnt exteutad by + rnothor in town Mors Me”Ces Sup Motu enqpiry v Nand tal Salwont otected Tudgemants on ber Crust, ethics» P. SOF Frets or me once i 1. dhe veapondint advorati hurled the a tee Alegans in. tha Suprame, court Gh Sedo.a We” . 2 ia Nandlat khodidas @awot v Bo counett of Gufarak ard othovs ie mar Set peace eRC ES t. axere Gre Wmplaints agarnst the appallant that he has drafted on adfidaurt withoub corstcaring the ment a the (082 and appellant on advocate casa quails eeaanraiarirreg th Saycnse No. 25 chardra shawar Sond ae exer af tapatian and others ne es SC (OR Faens_0f HB CASE Seek tee and wot vauch, txperitnced + 26 tad ttm moray a rap ME Ss ba) Sy = at = baa = = = 3Sra TT eee EPIURERTILELILTEEEEEE Re ns BsFEEEREE EBS! me pe peeneeeeeeeeiintiitLILEL EEE EATERS ececereette titi tiiPTT 3 ayDER ae= 2 a = J = = ww a oe|VaHtTEERELELITIIILLE BEER be enneer ar MCCUE ETI 07add Pittpeececveceenedtadiat .ceil t ji beeadLarceeeececcersettttiTt iTHE _suPREMe covet _pEeLoN ox = MIseoNDUCT By AN Apvocate ease Wo 3 Shambu Ram Yaday v Hanuman Das ALR 2001 s¢ 2509 Fats OF THE CASE PSU NL win ya Mu, Sepa appearing iy the Aunt whish uaa pandung do. ive] cousk iscng 2. gre council wtes a etter dp his clznt that)ae Rinpphront ‘ | =e tho commitize puspinded the vospondent rom | T | pmctice Yor a pévod of too ytam. = | DePCRT io) EARS COUN OF) INDIA = Sotion Be, THe el oa Gre bar council} of Andi enhanced the. purvirment given by the Atala bat council. Rurshment = Gre tommittze obvected that, the namo @ = = > = = ROSIER IE |: vespondint be struck, off from the Roll of advecatas and thus debarning him pormanently come tot a sasaee SR take Raa oothet pes Taek Om the -nouewn pebtton -qited. by. theFi stat, bar council vtthuh one year ptood transferred to bar & sndidileian sections 266). Mfoonteky Ae: ‘Appent ® _BAR_tounel_of _INoIA_- Seekn aAi é ME SuPREME COURT DECISION ON PROFESSION A’ misteusuer _6y AN _ADvocate | ease No 2 Prohlad Saran upta | v Bar tounetl 9 AIR tay Sc 1838 Src. Yaers or THe CASE 1. Gne appellant Frablad Saran Gupta was o Practiing advomt at Ghaziabad of uP. He EEL ws apporeing doo the decriz holder in a caste h the cout avi! Sudge, shassabad 2. A complaint wos veevivad by the U.P stot. Bax tounesl from Rafandra. Fensacl alleging ir. | waiiholding Gf. Re 'S00/- without paying) to the Aeerae holder and other allegations. OPINION OF STATE BAR, ENC | re Sta bar twouneil riforred the care to Ge Djpeiplinany tormmettoe buk ct could not tomplee | te roeadings within one year and tranyerved te the bax council Irdéa undor sechin a6 8 Advocates Ack. | pete bbbbbeleeeeitaeyee oo = sei, St counet! fee i er the appellane guilty imponauce wegarding ombnokling ; \ me ee i es a fapesion tom a—Tee_srmeng_toort_pecgpe_oo_teoesiont. yiooen 8 AN pewere | co Tr wi bsDube be eeee eee eee eed) Profession AL tiie _ suena cover_pecsstons , oupuer BY npvoent Dp iaputh sds) Tbekibeen Upasana. Lud Bhd trequges Nerash Crespondant)e AAvocatas “Ack, 196L + Siprome tour the contention’ of the pebitonen |thoy reode complaint 0 tho Stats Bar courerl Gre appellant dante having prominsory mata or any or hin ges 5S. Gra appollank obo pleade handed ovr he wecaived tha KOO amount yor coure dees tak though be bad Armgted Yo plaunte. be case to another vocal oj tain, chorea CAG tipo pected wer be tad neler cet the complainants and be bad signed as & quer toansal | 4. Ge appellant producod to vweeeipt he | dowments by He complainants, re ba counnil | found we veenipt to be dorged by appellant: opition’ OF STATE GAR CouniciL | gap stat box council obserwad that the oppdllant | & guatly qf profeional wiaconduc Poramente Gna couneel hold that tho appellant dixerwd 2 puuahmonte qf disbarment, but b ww of Me | young age, suapondad Ire from prochte for 6 flay, APPEAL TO GAR Cont. oF INDIA - Séckoo 34 ie ame Um oto enes oL Det Mo dideipl toromattea yound the reedgerceeeeteesgegyyyilthud) of contemet of cover ey AN ADVOCATE case No 4 Mahabir froaad Singh . v Mf Jack Aveakion AR Aq «SC 284ge peeliane Aging by te ay pmesdingn, ond te 9} adjowewene 6 plaice lad 9m appro che court. . ApreaL 9 We SUPREME COURT Sadgumant_ of the pupae sort dn tho appeal the supreme court gi? og IIIIIIIIIDS “x = Sy my Sa Ss Ss me SS we ms= me ae eal a Bs =ease Now Prétarapal ‘ ough High, court, oF Madi pradesh, Jabalpur, org eegistror me iar $e 408 of THE CASE an a prachning Advocalt @e oppellane ate cout ve qiled o say emare rogoadirg Ni employer doom the femy Soevten Me pleaded | that ii appuralion dor ~ekiqnaton as voluntary wakvement yrom the i the voit petition the and vestignation may be bnatad povitsa ard socsaquant Nouooor yahts ayy ws cok granted, fore, ond hs wnt pebtion was diamjeaad . high touwk ord the verohys 6 given to Wain | tastes pobition uh Ppeuwal Leave petition tun tho apron OWE 9 1008, | abe Agomnyared . | aro appellant dren mowed contompt — patition | Section 16 q we contempt qf courts Ack, 4 woking ona pectous allegations agairat the Sdgas Sf WP High court who dirmusead the potitvon and. undot wEUWULULE wa WUUV Cerri,& was eho aummanily cljempred bY sa omen | Borch af the Cg he of tha igh court warned J sede" agit the! juga) ord ae oy susbea on ey EEhse No. M. 8, Sanghi, Advent v High court of Minel are jaa sc 1634 bond Maryana. and othtye ners Of (WE CAs Tre appallant who i prachining fed alaska tell letagaity) oy “the | sub Sege by aaghg eae to oad a convatton Munieipal tommittae, tat be woe py. Commissioner and he 908 onder os an advocolt & telluacon vote the | tok efluende hate opeahontirg tha pounbit |G eat pure and an ad-intertm stay wat |< i ane Subordinat, Gudge weported the ratiar fo te Dptick and oosstione Sudge and atta | jpilomctted a vapor to the High tout. Tupgement oF THE HIGH covet Gre Miyh wink equa ard to a preeacinge, te venwed Got a appallan: had brought Wimself claorty within tra anbit a He cootonph of tout and be wos acerdingly found guilty vader gechion 2(0(1) ef the Ak. See iy,Auryahenonls Che Hie owe did ok Conejo GEO apology tendered by the appellant and sentenced him Yor evo months teyprsoomant Areean 7 THe suPmeMe Cou appellant: giied an appeal im the es