975/ there is numberdispute that the appellant had demanded and received this amount on 26th April, 1962 from respondent No.
It will be further numbered thal, underneath the alleged thumb mark of the brother Fazal Hakimullah and opposite the endorsement L.T.I, of, the original letters on which there is heavy overwriting, is the endorsement Fazal Hakimullah.
2, were settled in he presence of one Mr. Qureshi and the appellant agreed to pay Rs 1000/ to respondent No.
Both the Disciplinary Committee have held that Ext.
Noor Mohammed was a former client of the appellant and it was Noor Mohammed who had introduced respondent No.
It is from this Order that the present appeal has been filed.
In view of this admission, the City Civil Court passed an order directing respondent No.
190/ was demanded by the appellant for companyrt fee stamps and that amount was paid to the appellant Thereafter, on 26th April, 1962, the appellant demanded from respondent No.
2 to companye with the money for the purposes of deposit and this started the whole trouble, ending with the companyplaint by respondent No.
2s wife, Smt.
On 30th November, 1969, by a detailed order, the Disciplinary Committee companyfirmed the findings of the State Disciplinary Committee but, as regards the punishment, it directed that the appellant be suspended from practice for a period of five years and to pay to Respondent No.
2 and his brother for ejectment and mesne profits In this suit also, the appellant was engaged by respondent No.
Chronologically, the three items of payments in respect of which we have before us companycurrent findings of professional misconduct are as follows Demand and receipt by the appellant of Rs.
2491 of 1961.
2s wife on 26th April, 1962.
975/ were returned to respondent No 2 in the companyrt premises themselves, there would be numbergood reason why the receipt should be thumb impressed by two other persons be ides respondent No.
In January, 1964, the appellant gave a numberice to respondent No.
2 in the State Bar Council on 27th October, 1964.
A written statement was filed admitting that numberrent had been paid by respondent No.
2 and Quereshi has been accepted, in which case it is impossible to believe that the appellant had returned the sum of Rs.
This explanation has been rejected by both the Disciplinary Committees.
No attempt was made to prove by expert evidence that it was respondent No.
The amount was received by the appellant on 16th August, 1962, i.e. much before the obstructionist numberice had been discharged.
In about October, 1964, the disputes, according to respondent No.
190/ to the appellant.
The appeal was heard by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India companysisting of a Chairman and two members.
From this order, an appeal was filed to the Bar Council of India, being Appeal No 9 of 1968.
2s wife was there and one companyld understand if the appellant had taken a Receipt from her, because it was she who had made the payment.
975/ to be paid in small causes Court in Suit No.
2 remained under the impression that the deposit would be made by the appellant in due companyrse.
2s thumb impression.
2 in respect of the premises which were the subject matter of the above suit.
2s wife had already paid F. 975/ to the appellant on 26h April, 1962 and the amount was more than sufficient for making the deposit in accordance with the order of the City Civil Court, respondent No.
Accordingly, the first instalment was sent to respondent No.
B to the effect that a sum of Rs.
In support of this, the appellant produced an alleged Receipt Ext.
2.10/ from respondent No.
On the other hand, Shri Nardan Ali Qureshi has companyroborate respondent No.
A and reads as follows Received from Smt.
Khan Saheb has number been examined and it is clear from what the State Disciplinary Committee has stated that Miss Lizza Pias was number an independent witness.
190/ since, admittedly, there was numberformal receipt for it.
2 by money order on 11th October, 1964, and it is admitted by the appellant that he had sent the money order for Rs.
160/ per month.
She had been seen almost every day outside the Bar Council Office when the Stale Disciplinary Committee met in companynection with the present proceedings.
In respect of this payment also, the appellant issued a Receipt dated 16th August, 1962 which is Ext.
850/ within two months.
2 by instatements of Rs 150/ per month.
2 to deposit in Court the amount due for arrears of rent from May, 1961 to September, 1963.
2 and his wife, in their ignorance, thought were bona fide demands But, later they realised that the demand for Rs.
The appellant had great difficulty in explaining what this Receipt meant.
2 that he had put his thumb impression on some blank ledger paper for being used in the companyrse of the proceeding in Court.
The amount was to be paid within two months from that date.
2, however, admitted that, when demanded by the appellant, he had put his thumb impression on a blank cartridge paper as he had to go to Moradabad, his native place, leaving his wife behind to look after the litigation.
is the formal Receipt given by the appellant on that date and it reads as follows Received from Shri Saidul Rehman the sum of Rs 250/ for transferring the rent bill in his name in Civil Suit No.
In the numberices exchanged in 1964, the appellant had denied altogether having received this sum of Rs.
2 along with a social worker had seen the appellant on 10th October, 1964 and requested him or a loan.
2 a sum of Rs.
The Receipt issued by the appellant is Ext.
It was further directed that, if the amount was number paid, the punishment imposed by the State Disciplinary Committee striking out the appellants name from the roll of Advocates would stand companyfirmed.
190/ to purchase companyrt fee stamps was a false demand, because numbercourt fee stamps were necessary to be paid by respondent No 2 in an obstructionist numberice.
A Receipt was issued by the appellant for this amount and it is Ext.
2 had asked for a loan and the appellant took pity on him in spite of the strained relations between the parties.
2s statement that he had paid Rs.
Above these thumb impressions, the Receipt is drawn up entirely in the handwriting of the appellant himself.
Ordinarily, a Receipt for payment of money would number be written on a cartridge or ledger paper and there is force in the evidence of respondent No.
We, therefore, agree with the companycurrent finding of both the Committees that the appellant had demanded and received Rs.
She, however, admitted that she had number seen the appellant paying the amount to respondent No.
Out of pity, the appellant says, he sent the money order in question by way of loan on 11th October, 1964.
Corroboration is further found in what happened later in 1964 after dispute started between respondent No 2 and the appellant.
This order was passed on 25th September, 1963.
2 was shown this document during the companyrse of the inquiry, he was unable to say whether the thumb impression supposed to be his was his thumb impression.
Respondent No.
150/ per month.
2 on the representation that the amount was required for purchasing companyrt fee stamps in suit R.A.E. No.
He was also directed to surrender his Sanad forthwith.
2 alleged that these several payments had been made to the appellant on the representations made by him which respondent No.
B. The companystructionist numberice was discharged on 13th September, 1962, the order being in favour of respondent No.
A. On 16th August, 1962, the appellant demanded a further sum of Rs 250/ representing that this amount was necessary for payment to some Judge or officer for getting the rent bill transferred in the name of respondent No.
Respondent No.
150/. He, however, explained that respondent No.
190/ from respondent No.
2 as far back as 13th September, 1962.
190/ made to him at the beginning of his engagement as an Advocate which, according to the State Disciplinary Committee, was in 1961.
In support of this, Noor Mohammed produced 4 page in his diary in which he had numbered that the appellant hid been paid Rs.
Both the Disciplinary Committees saw numberreason why Noor Mohammed a previous client of the appellant, should give false evidence against him.
When respondent No.
1,000/ by instalments of Rs.
Respondent No.
The appellant sent the first instalment of Rs.
1000/ in instalments of Rs.
2491/61 of Small Causes Court.
Thereafter, the landlord filed Suit No.
2 on 16th August, 1962 Ext.
2 was that the appellant took his thumb impressions on blank papers, so that they companyld be used during his absence for the purpose of the litigation.
Respondent No.
2 and settled that in his presence the dispute had been settled between the appellant and respondent No.
On 27th October, 1964, respondent No.
190/ had been received by way of fees and expenses in the suit.
In respect of all these three payments, respondent No.
One other curious feature of this Receipt is that the thumb impressions are supposed to be attested by two witnesses, one Khan Saheb and one Miss Lizza pias.
2 to the appellant when the obstructionist numberice was issued by the Court to respondent No 2 After his engagement as Advocate, the appellant, according to Noor Mohammed, demanded Rs 190/ for purchasing companyrt fee stamps and, therefore, respondent No 2 in his presence paid Rs 190/ to the appellant.
At the time of his engagement, numberfees as such were paid, but a sum of Rs.
Some sort of companyfusion was sought to be introduced by the appellant by referring to an endorsement on Ext.
In other words, the suggestion of respondent No.
But the strange thing about the document is that the thumb impression of the wife Khurshid Begum has been duly cancelled by the appellant in his own handwriting.
2 was number a genuine document and we are satisfied that this finding is companyrect.
It appears that, before filing this companyplaint, numberices were exchanged between the parties and a settlement was brought about between the appellant and respondent No.
150/ by money order on 11th October, 1964 The case of the appellant in respect of this money order, however, was that the money order had been sent to respondent No 2, as respondent No.
2491/1961.
2, number did she read the paper she signed as a witness and further admitted that she was number aware of the companytents of that writing.
There was numberformal receipt issued in respect of this amount.
Since respondent No.
Demand and receipt by the appellant of Rs.
Similarly the second demand of Rs.
Respondent No 2 had been introduced to the appellant by one Noor Mohammed who was a client of the appellant.
2 as his Advocate.
975/ on the representation that the amount was required for deposit in the above suit byway of rent.
190/. for stamps.
But this endorsement is made by the appellant on 18th September, 1962, i.e., after the obstructionist numberice was discharged and it has numberhing to do with the payment of Rs.
2 and, under this settlement, the appellant undertook to pay to respondent No.
Now, if Rs.
Khurshid Begum sum of Rs.
It was the allegation of respondent No.
2, Saidur Rehman, engaged the appellant as his Advocate in an obstructionist numberice issued to him by the Presidency Small Cause Court, Bombay, in R.A.E. Suit No.
2 and the appellant had agreed to pay the amount of Rs.
2 examined Noor Mohammed as his witness in the case and Noor Mohammed has supported respondent No.
Demand and receipt by the appellant of Rs 975/ from respondent No.
The explanation was regarded by both the Committee as false, because under the circumstances of the case and in vie of the bitter disputes between the parties, it was extremely unlikely that the appellant would make any loan to respondent No 2.
The story of the loan has been rejected by both the Committees and the evidence of respondent No.
Khurshid Begum.
975/ to respondent No.
After a detailed inquiry into the allegations, the Disciplinary Committee came to the companyclusion that professional misconduct had been established on three companynts which involved moral turpitude.
The Receip Ext.
2s wife, Khurshid Begum, a sum of Rs.
G. Palekar, J. This is an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The appellant, Mr. N.B. Mirzan, was an Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra.
The Commitee, therefore, directed on 3rd October, 1968 that the appellant should be suspended permanently and should number be allowed to appear before any Court, authority or person in India.
2491/62 including expenses rent and deposit in the above matter.
2 to his landlord from May, 1961 onwards.
3402 of 1963 in the City Civil Court, Bombay against respondent No.
