Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    40 2012

    Uploaded by

    Knr Rfp
    The document summarizes a case before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. It describes the facts of the case where [1] the appellant had engaged and paid the respondent lawyer to file a civil suit but [2] the respondent later advised filing the suit himself and representing the opposing party instead. The Committee examined the oral and documentary evidence and found [3] that the appellant had never actually engaged the respondent lawyer to file the civil suit as alleged. The Committee therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered costs to be paid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    40 2012

    Uploaded by

    Knr Rfp
    171 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. It describes the facts of the case where [1] the appellant had engaged and paid the respondent lawyer to file a civil suit but [2] the respondent later advised filing the suit himself and representing the opposing party instead. The Committee examined the oral and documentary evidence and found [3] that the appellant had never actually engaged the respondent lawyer to file the civil suit as alleged. The Committee therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered costs to be paid.

    Original Description:

    BCI case

    Original Title

    40-2012

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. It describes the facts of the case where [1] the appellant had engaged and paid the respondent lawyer to file a civil suit but [2] the respondent later advised filing the suit himself and representing the opposing party instead. The Committee examined the oral and documentary evidence and found [3] that the appellant had never actually engaged the respondent lawyer to file the civil suit as alleged. The Committee therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered costs to be paid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    171 views2 pages

    40 2012

    Uploaded by

    Knr Rfp
    The document summarizes a case before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. It describes the facts of the case where [1] the appellant had engaged and paid the respondent lawyer to file a civil suit but [2] the respondent later advised filing the suit himself and representing the opposing party instead. The Committee examined the oral and documentary evidence and found [3] that the appellant had never actually engaged the respondent lawyer to file the civil suit as alleged. The Committee therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered costs to be paid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 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.

    You might also like