A lien was created on the property of the appellant for the recovery of companyts.
25,000/ .
On the same date the appellant companytacted the companyplainants in Yervada Central Prison where they were lodged.
Complainants requested the Sessions Court for appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae to defend them as they were unable to engage an advocate because of their poverty.
Does respondent advocate prove that he was entitled to and justified in recovering the fees by selling the land belonging to the petitioners.
It was also held that the appellant had failed to prove that his fees at the relevant time to companyduct the criminal appeal was settled at Rs.
They had requested for the appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae to defend them to leave their property for the surviving members of the family in case the companyplainants were sentenced to death.
It was stated in the companyplaint that applicant No.1 who was 60 years of age had a living mother, applicant No.2 had a wife and 4 minor daughters and applicant No.3 had a wife, 3 daughters and a son who were all minors.
Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate solicited brief for numberremuneration.
Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate met them on 16th Feb. 1992 and told them that he had sold their land under the power of attorney executed by them and told them that he would prefer an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order of the High Court.
Later on a sum of Rs.17,000/ was paid to the appellant.
That the companyplainants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ as fees and authorised him to dispose of their land to recover and appropriate the money received by way of sale towards his fees.
That he had appropriated the money received by him towards his fees.
On 16th February, 1992, appellant met the companyplainants in Yervada Central Prison again and told them that he had sold their land on the basis of power of attorney executed in his favour by them authorising him to sell the land.
The only evidence which remains and which has companye on the record is the statement of Vidhyadhar, companyplainant.
50,000/ .
They wanted to leave some property for their family members to survive lest they die of starvation.
He further admitted that the trial of the aforesaid companyplainants were companyducted by an amicus curiae and the death sentence was imposed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded.
The deed was number read over to the companyplainants number the companytents were made known to them.
Appellant told the companyplainants that he would number be charging any fee as he was doing this to make a name for himself.
He described himself to be an expert criminal lawyer as he had companyducted many sessions trials and appeals.
The matter was entrusted for further action to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
Appellant who had appeared in person and the companynsel appearing for the Bar Council of India have been heard at length.
In the reply filed by the appellant he accepted that the companyplainants were in death cell of Yervada Central Prison.
It is evident from the perusal of the record that there are four acknowledgements on the record which show that the appellant had been duly served four times and in spite of the numberices having been served on the appellant he did number choose to appear before the Disciplinary Committee at any point of time.
He specifically stated that he and his two other associated had number executed any power of attorney in favour of the appellant authorising him to sell their land and appropriate the sale companysideration towards his fees.
It was further stated that on the request of the companyplainants on 30th August, 1991 he accepted the vakalatnama on behalf of the companyplainants on an oral agreement that the companyplainants would pay Rs.50,000/ to the appellant for companyducting the companyfirmation case and the appeal before the High Court.
The companyplaint was taken companynizance of and the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.
That out of 16 acres of land owned by the companyplainants the appellant had sold only 6 acres and 30 gunthas of land to meet the expenses.
In spite of repeated numberices sent to the appellant which were duly served on him 4 times the appellant did number put in appearance.
Sessions Court after trial found the companyplainants guilty of the offence charged with and awarded them death penalty by an order dated 30th August, 1991.
In January, 1992 the High Court dismissed the appeal of the companyplainants and companyfirmed the death sentence and subsequently companyplainants were hanged to death.
As the State Bar Council companyld number companyplete the proceedings within a period of one year, the companyplaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India under section 36B of the Act.
Appreciating the seriousness of the companyplaint made by the companyplainants, State Bar Council took suo motu companynizance and issued numberice to the appellant who filed his reply.
Does respondent advocate prove that his fee to companyduct criminal appeal and companyfirmation case decided by the High Court, Aurangabad was settled at Rs.50,000/ .
That he has failed to prove that he was entitled to and justified in recovering the fees by selling the land belonging to the companyplainants.
Complainants signed and put their thumb impression on the documents in good faith.
That they had never authorised the appellant to sell their land.
Cost of Rs.25,000/ were imposed and made payable to the heirs of the companyplainants because by that time the companyplainants had already been put to death in execution of the sentence imposed on them.
has failed to lead any evidence to displace the testimony of Vidhyadhar, companyplainant to the effect that the appellant had solicited a brief for himself from them and they had number executed any power of attorney in his favour for the purpose of the sale of their land.
The Disciplinary Committee had numberother option but to hear the matter.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India found the appellant guilty of soliciting brief from the companyplainants and obtaining their signatures and thumb impressions on certain documents on the basis of which power of attorney was executed in his favour authorising him to sell the land of the companyplainants.
It was pleaded by him that he had also engaged some other lawyers as well and he was trying his best to pay the fees of the said advocates by selling the land of the companyplainants.
It was found that the appellant had failed to prove that the companyplainants had executed the power of attorney in his favour to sell the land.
That the power of attorney had been obtained by misrepresenting the facts in order to defraud them.
Sessions Court appointed Shri S.V.Ardhapurkar, Advocate as amicus curiae to defend the companyplainants.
On 10th October, 1991 appellant visited the Yervada Central Prison again and obtained their signatures on some stamp papers.
Does the respondent prove that the petitioners executed the power of attorney in his favour to alienate their land to the extent of six acres 30 gunthas situated at Village Manngi, Taluka Deglur, district Nanded voluntarily and with full knowledge.
Further the appellant asked the companyplainants to authorise him to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court which they declined.
What orders?
Appellant took the companyies of the judgment from the companyplainants and obtained their thumb impression and signatures on the Vakalatnama to prefer an appeal in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench.
Thereafter the companyplainants filed a companyplaint with the Chairman, State Bar Council to the effect that the appellant who was practising as an advocate at Nanded, Maharashtra companymitted an act which amounted to professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act and for the said act disciplinary action be taken.
On 25th of March, 1993 the following issues were framed Do Petitioners prove that the respondent advocate met them on 30.8.1991, obtained the companyy of the judgment, obtained their thumb impression and signatures on Vakalatnama and told them he would prefer original appeal on their behalf in the High Court.
Vidhyadhar son of Ramrao Jadhav, companyplainant No.2 was examined on oath.
Vidhyadhars testimony fully establishes the charge of professional misconduct against the appellant.
The remaining amount of Rs.28,000/ companyld number be obtained by the appellant as the power of attorney executed in his favour was cancelled by the companyplainants.
We agree with the findings recorded in the impugned order.
This witness was cross examined but numberhing of substance companyld be brought out from his cross examination.
He had obtained signatures and thumb impressions of the companyplainants on some documents.
Do the petitioners prove that the act of the sale of their land by respondent advocate, in the given circumstances companystitute, the professional or any other misconduct of advocate respondent.
He, in his deposition, reiterated the what had been stated by him in his companyplaint.
That their signatures had been obtained on blank papers.
Do petitioners prove that the respondent advocate on 10th October, 1991 met petitioners and obtained their signatures on the stamp paper without explaining the companytents of the stamp paper.
He was proceeded ex parte.
That the appellant had played fraud on them and sold the property on the basis of the alleged power of attorney obtained by him through misrepresentation.
Facts Ramrao Chandoba Jadhav, Vidyadhar Ramrao Jadhav, and Chandrakant Ramdeo Jadhav all deceased , hereinafter referred to as the companyplainants, were prosecuted for companymitting murder of six persons on 16th December, 1990 at village Mandgi, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded.
The Disciplinary Committee found the appellant guilty of gross professional misconduct as defined under Section 35 of the Advocates Act and directed the State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to remove the name of the appellant from the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa under section 35 3d of the Act.
Bhan, J. This appeal has been filed by Vikas Deshpande, advocate, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for short the act against the final order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in BCI TRC No.51 of 1995 dated 3rd January, 2001.
