THE DISCIPLINARY

COMMITTEE
THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
OF

B.C.I. TR. CASE NO. 22/1998

TEK CHAND

Vs.
Complainant
PRAMOD KUMAR CHAUDHARY
Present :
Respondent
SHRI BABURAM TEWARI,
SHRIADISH C. AGGARWAL,CHAIRMAN
MEMBER
SHRIRAJENDRA RANA, MEMBER

Advocates Act, 1961 Section

35-Professional Misconduct, the
complainant alleged that the respondent took a sum of Rs. 72,000/
from him for helping him in
relation with Additional Districtexecution of a lease as he has good
respondent was done nor money was Magistrate. Neither the work of
made for misconduct for not returned. The complaint was
refunding the said amount on account of
non-execution of the lease. In spite of several notices, the
did not appear andtook
adjournments on one pretext or the respondent
other.
It was held that "it is
incumbent on an
professional ethics that he should be fair in dealingadvocate under
particularly in relation to money transactions. From thewith his clients
perusal of the
file and analysis of the
without basis and the
circumstances, it is proved that the case is not

circumstances alleged advocate-respondent should have

and brought before the committeeexplained the
to exonerate
himself from the charges levelled against him. It is
advocate to indulge in such type of practices as areunbecoming of an
levelled against
him. The respondent has been avoiding and
the case in not co-operating in the delaying the disposal of
progress of the proceedings and
thereby lowering down the position of advocates. The Committee under
the circumstances and in view of the
discussions made found the
 162 FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION

respondent guilty of professional misconduct and

punishable u/s 35 of theAdvocates Act. other
The respondent was debarred from practice for 5
misconduct
enrolment certificate issued to him was years and the
recalled and
Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. a
cost of
ORDER DATED 14-10-2000
This case arises out of a complaint fled by one
Shri Tek
before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The Complaint
by the Bar Council for disposal to its
Chand
was referred
Disciplinary
1996. But the State Disciplinary Committee could Committee on 6-7-
within the stipulated period of one year and
not dispose
it of
automatically transferred to the Bar Council of consequently the case
36B of the Advocates Act, 1961. India under Section
After the transfer of the case before the
was re-numbered as B.C.ITr. Case
Bar Council of India it
No. 22/1998 and notices were
issued to the parties by the
of India fixing 4-12-1999 at Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Counel
Allahabad. On
appeared in person but none appeared for4-12-1999 the complainant
notice was not received either the respondent. As the
served or unserved from the
respondent, the Committee directed to issue fresh notice to the
respondent-Advocate through the
Association, Lucknow. Next hearingSecretary, High Court Bar
of
8-1-2000 at New Delhi, on that date too the this case was fixed on
and the notice sent to him respondent did not appear
that the addressee had left. Thereturned back with postal endorsement
again adjourned the case to 19.2.2000 Committee in the interest of justice
and
the respondent through High Court Bar directed issue of notice to
also through Registrar, High Association, Lucknow and
Court Bench, Lucknow.
"The case could not be taken up on
fixed for 22.4.2000. Meanwhile an 19.2.2000. The case was agaun
received in the office from the application dated 17.4.Z000 Ws
has received the notice but is respondent-Adyocate intimating that e
unableto attend the next date nxeu
thegrounds of ailment and he also
intimated that he lost his
concerning the case in a theft which took place in his housepapers and
 TEK CHAND Vs.
PRAMOD KUMAR
snsted for adjournment. CHOUDHARY 163
On 22.4.2000 the case
Ganga Ram, son of Tek was taken up. Shri
Chand, complainant,
Committee and apprised the appeared before the
Committee of demise of his father, and
intended to move an
application for substitution as legal
representatives of the
fan application receiveddeceased complainant. He also showed the copy
from
respondentrespondent-Advocate
for
On this date the
was again absent. adjournment.
Committee considered the circurnstances of the case andHowever the
#he case for next date of adjourned
hearing and directed Ganga Ram to move the
application for substitution.
The case was next fixed for 4.6.2000. On that
date
son of the deceased complainant was substituted and theGanga Ram,
Advocate
opposite party applied for supply of copies of complaint and other
connected documents of the case. The Committee ordered for issue of
the same to the respondent and registry sent the papers to the
respondent vide letter No. DCL:D: 2260/2000dated 7.6.2000.The case
was adjourned to 2nd September, 2000 and no notice to the parties
was ordered to be sent as both the parties noted the next date of
hearing. As it was not possible to take up the case on 2.9.2000, the
registry sent communication to the parties fixing the case for 9.9.2000
for hearing.
On 4.6.2000, on hearing the parties the following issues were
framed in this case:
1. Whether respondent Shri Pramod Kumar Chowdhary took a
sum of Rs. 72,000/- from the complainant for negotiating lease
of a building in which the complainant was conducting the
business and further he is guilty of not refunding the said
amount on account of non-execution of the lease ?
2. Whether respondent is guilty of committing any misconduct?
On 9.9.2000 the case was taken up. Ganga was impleaded as legal
representative of the complainant and was present in person. None
present for the respondent. An application was received by post from
the respondent praying for adjournment on the grounds of financial
problems to attend the hearing. The Committee was not satisfied with
 164 FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION

the grounds mentioned in the adjournment application and

the same but since the respondent was absent, the
not record the evidence of the complainant's Commitdiesemissed
witnesses and
could
adiournment cost of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on the respondent
The case was next fixed for today. Registered
the respondent on 14.9.2000 but the registered
notice was sent to
received back with the postal endorsement that the notice has been
is in a bad shape and recipient's health
therefore he does not come to court. ha
complainant is present along with two witnesses and from the
sheets this case it appears that the respondent is not
of perusal
in the proceeding and take co-operating
adjournments on one pretext or the other
and avoiding the disposal of the case.
Under the circumstances the service of notice for
is presumed against the respondent and the today's hearing
case will proceed ex-parte
against the respondent-Advocate.
The legal representative of the
adduce his evidence. He examined complainant
was called upon to
Shri Krishna Gupta as CW- 1,
Rajendra Kumar as CW- 2 and himself as CW- 3, and closed his
evidence.

Heard the arguments of the L.R. of the complainant and

the records and pronounced the judgment. perused

JUDGEMENT
The brief facts of the case are that Shri Tek Chand Gupta moved
an application against respondent-Advocate Shri Pramod Kumar
Chaudhry, practising at Lakhimpur Kheri (UP)later practising at
Lucknow that the respondent -Advocate conyeyed to him that he has
close relations with additional District Magistrate,Kheri and he wll
help him in executing a lease of the shop in which the complainant
runs his business. The complainant has full faith in the respondent
and engaged him as his counsel and paid Rs. 72,000/- to the
respondent as demanded by him after selling the valuables and
ornaments etc. For about 10 months the respondent-Advocate du
nothing in the matter, rather insulted the complainant and
threatened him of dire consequences. The complainant approached so
 TEK CHAND Vs. PRAMOD
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
165
many respectable persons of Lakhimpur Kheri but of no
the complainant on 5.10.95 approached the vail. However
respondent along with two
respectable persons and that day the respondent
under his signature and writing promising Rs. issued a receipt
twenty thousand)to be paid by him by 11.10.95 and 20,000/- (Rupees
rest by March 96.
When the money was not returned by the
respondent to the
complainant, as promised by respondent while issuing receipt, the
complainant thereafter pursued the matter with the respondent.
Instead of returning the money the respondent threatened the
complainant saying that if the complainant pursued the matter any
further he and his family members will be eliminated. Thereafter the
complainant filed this complaint before the Bar Council of Uttar
Pradesh in the month of April, 1996. and prayed action against
respondent.
The respondent filed his reply before the Bar Council of Utar
Pradesh inter alia denying the allegations made against him in the
complaint and made an averment in para 3 of the reply that
complainant never gave him any heavy amount and he further
alleged that on October, 5, 1995 Tek Chand and his brother Ram
Chander along with three others armed with country-made pistol
came to his residence and abducted him to Tek Chand's place and
compelled him to write a receipt of Rs. 12,000/- only otherwise they
threatened the respondent of dire consequences. He also alleged that
Tek Chand compelled the respondent to bring fixed deposit receipts in
his daughter's name and compelled him to write a transfer letter of
fixed deposit of Rs. 7,000/- only. He further says that he did not lodge
to his
any report on that day because he apprehended the danger
family members. In para 11 in his reply he submits and states "It may
72,000/- as
be possible that in last 15 years Tek Chand has paid Rs.
further says that Tek
fee and expenses to him to conduct cases." He
and she issued a
Chand had taken a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from his wife
engaged him
cheque therefor. He further alleged that Tek Chand had
and the bail application
in a bail matter which was argued by him
Tek Chand has fabricated
was dismissed and because of that reason
since the complaint has no
this case against him and stated that
merits it should be dismissed.
 166 FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATION

In this case two issues have been framed and

connected and they are taken together for disposal.
they
are inter
In order to substantiate allegations of the
complainant having died his legal representative complainant
the
pursued the
complaint. He has examined two witnesses and has also
himself. There is areceipt (Ex-CW-1) alleged to have been examined
respondent-Advocate in the presence of Shri Rajendra executed by
Kumar
and Sanjay Srivastava who have signed as withesses and Gupta
Kumar has examined himself and has proved Ex-CW-1. One Sht Rajendra
Krishna Gupta als0 appeared before the
Rs. 72,000/- were paid by Tek Chand Committee
who says that
to the
registration of the Najural land etc. Ganga Ram, respondent the son of the
for
deceased complainant, has also appeared before this
examined himself and proved two letters Exbts C-3 and committee and
by respondents to one Vinod and the C-4 written
other to Tek Chand and has also
proved the complaint Ex-C-2. Thus
complaint as regards the payment and allegations contained in the
execution of receipt is proved
as it is
uncontroverted. reply of the
The
from his reply it is proved that the respondent is evasive and
respondent in the matter and Rs. 72,000/- complainant engaged the
respondent. The respondent only. says in his replywere paid to the
that a receipt for
Rs. 12,000/- was only obtained
under duress, whereas the receipt Ex.
C1 clearly speaks of Rs. 20,000/- to be
paid
paid by March, 1996. In this reply he says by 11.10.95 and rest to be
Chand might have given Rs.72,000/- withinthat it is possible that Tek
15 years as his fees and
expenses of the cases, It is incumbent on an
professional ethics that he should be fair in dealing advocate under
clients, particularly in relation to money with his
perusal of the file and analysis of the transaction. From he
the case is not without basis
and
circumstances it is proved that
the
circumstances Advocate-respondent
have explained the snouu
alleged
Committee to exonerate himself from the and brought before the
him. (lt is unbecoming of an charges levelled against
Advocate to indulge in such type or
practices as are levelled against
avoiding and delaying the disposal ofhim. The respondent has .peeu
the case in not
the progress of the
proceedings, thereby lowering
and co-operating
down the
n
 TEK CHAND Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR
CHOUDHARY 167
position of an advocate. In the considered opinion of the
Committee
under the circumstances and in view of the discussions made
above,
the respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct and other
misconduct punishable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The
issues are decided in favour of the complainant and against the
respondent.

ORDER
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaudhry is found guilty under Section 35 of
the Advocates Act and is debarred from practising before any Court of
Law, Tribunal, authority or person for a period of five years from the
date of receipt of this order, and the enrolment certificate issued to
him is hereby recalled. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand only) is imposed against the respondent to be paid to the
Legal Representatives of the Complainant within one month from the
date of receipt of this order.
Let the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh issue notifications as
provided under the rules.