The companyplainant alleged that he had already filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated November 15, 1991 which was pending and was within the knowledge of the advocate appellant.
Civil Appeal No.
On receipt of the numberice, the advocate appellant appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, which heard the appeal preferred by the companyplainant for enhancement of the punishment on October 30, 2004.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India issued numberice to the advocate appellant on October 5, 2004 intimating him that the matter has been kept on October 30, 2004.
Under Section 37 of the Advocates Act an appeal should be filed within period of 60 days from the date of companymunication of the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.
Therefore, the application filed by the respondent advocate seeking permission to file cross appeal cannot be entertained and as such the same is liable to be rejected.
Result ?
423 situate in Nursing Ward, Jabalpur, which was attested by the advocate appellant, it has been stated that on the Western side of the saleable property one shop adjacent to Sahara lounge presently in occupation of the companyplainant has already been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant by giving him the ownership right, although vendors father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna had entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the companyplainant on November 15, 1991 and the vendors father has already received an amount of Rs.
By a separate order passed on that day, i.e., October 31, 2004, the cross appeal preferred by the advocate appellant was dismissed.
2293 of 2005 preferred by the advocate appellant arises from the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India whereby companyplainants appeal for enhancement of punishment has been allowed, while Civil Appeal No.
On the companyplaint made by the respondent Nathulal Vishwakarma against the advocate appellant to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.
Whether the respondent advocate has been guilty of professional mis conduct?
There is however numberprovision for filing application seeking permission to file any appeal or cross appeal.
In the cross appeal preferred by the advocate appellant, it is stated that being aggrieved by the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, the cross appeal is being preferred by the respondent therein advocate appellant herein .
a Whether the Respondent Advocate purchased the property from Jitendra Singh Bhakna as described at Page No.
The allegation of professional mis conduct against the advocate appellant is that in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 executed by Jitender Singh Bakna in favour of Smt.
On numberice, the advocate appellant filed reply to the companyplaint and denied the allegations made against him.
Whether the Respondent Advocate deliberately filed suit for eviction in the name of Jitendra Singh Bhakna against the companyplainant although the respondent was the owner thereof as mentioned in the sale deed dated 3.11.99?
Not satisfied with the order dated April 22, 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, the companyplainant preferred appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for short, 1961 Act to the Bar Council of India.
On the pleadings of the parties, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council framed the following issues 1.
He expressed his ignorance about the statement made in the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 regarding sale of shop in occupation of the companyplainant to the advocate appellant by the vendor.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, vide its judgment dated October 31, 2004, allowed the appeal of the companyplainant modified the punishment of reprimand awarded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council and ordered his suspension from practice for a period of one year from the date of companymunication of the order.
In his reply, the advocate appellant explained the circumstances in which the sale deed dated November 3, 1999 was executed.
55 of 2002, an application has been filed by the respondent advocate seeking permission to file a cross appeal in the above numbered appeal.
After the companyclusion of the hearing of that appeal, an application was filed by the advocate appellant seeking permission to file cross appeal and the cross appeal was tendered.
The order dated October 31, 2004, whereby the advocate appellants cross appeal has been dismissed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, reads as follows After the companyclusion of hearing of Disciplinary Appeal No.
5 in Sale Deed dated 3.11.99 of which the Respondent Advocate who was attesting witness?
Suchi Gupta companycerning sale of property House No.
2,00,000/ towards the sale companysideration.
The companyplainant and the advocate appellant examined themselves and also tendered documents in support of their respective case.
4484 of 2005 has been preferred by the advocate appellant aggrieved by the order dismissing his cross appeal as number maintainable.
As a matter of fact, the advocate appellant had instituted a suit on behalf of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna against the companyplainant for eviction of the said shop showing the companyplainant as a tenant of Sardar Desh Singh Bakna.
Having adjudged the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis conduct, the Disciplinary Committee, State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, awarded punishment of reprimand to the advocate appellant vide its order dated April 22, 2002.
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, after hearing the parties and on companysideration of the evidence tendered by them, recorded its finding against the advocate appellant on the above issues and held the advocate appellant guilty of professional mis conduct.
By the principal order, the advocate appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of one year from the date of companymunication of the order.
M. Lodha, J. These two Appeals have been preferred by Advocate Dhanraj Singh Choudhary for short, advocate appellant being dissatisfied with the two orders dated October 31, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
