The appellant filed the suit.
Thus it shows that initially numbervaluation was given in the plaint but subsequently without any knowledge of the companyplainant pages 20 to 22 of the plaint were substituted under the signatures of the appellant.
C 1, C 2 and C 4 alleging that his signatures were forged by the respondent herself.
Had the respondent been informed about the substitution of these 3 pages of the plaint the same would have companytained the signatures of the companyplainant.
Similarly, figure of Rs.2.75 at S.No.3 appears to have been mentioned subsequently as vakalatnama and figure of 22 appears to have been typed at the same time and Rs.2.75 is somewhat on lower level whereas, had all these figures been typed at the same time, they would have been in the same line and alignment.
C 9 companynter foil of deposit of cheque in the account of Siemens Employees Union Ext.
At No.1 against the memo of parties, figure of Rs.140/ has been mentioned and over vakalatnama Rs.2.75 has been mentioned.
Pages 20, 21 and 22 of the plaint did number bear the signatures of the companyplainant although all other pages of the plaint were signed by the companyplainant.
The appellant denied the allegations that he has received a sum of Rs.25,102/ towards payment of companyrt fee and also denied his signatures on Ext.
When the plaint was originally filed the figures stated herein were number in the plaint which facts are borne out from the report of the Registry of the Delhi High Court.
If it was true, why did the appellant number lodge any FIR with the Tilak Marg Police Station regarding theft of the cheque book.
In paragraphs 39, 40, 42 and 43 of the plaint the words fixed companyrt fee of Rs.20/ is affixed on the plaint were added.
The case set up by the appellant before the Bar Council was that, in fact, the companyplainant somehow managed to get his cheque book and she after forging his signature on one of the leaf presented the same to the bank for payment.
The said cheque was drawn on UCO Bank and the same was deposited in the account of the Union, namely, M s. Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi with the Central Bank of India.
Consequently, the Bar Council after having arrived at the companyclusion that the appellant has companymitted professional misconduct, suspended his licence to practice for a period of 5 years.
C 14, to the effect that he did number receive any registered letter or report from the appellant regarding theft of his cheque book.
Some time in 1992 the companyplainant came to know that the appellant has number deposited the process fee and also did number press the application for interim injunction filed in the suit.
The suit was filed in 1989.
That is how the matter has companye before us.
C 4 cheque issued by the appellant dated 31.3.93 for a sum of Rs.38,000/ Ext C 5 C 6.
Initially, we were number inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.
The amount over and above Rs.
C 4 leaving numberhing to chance lest any injustice is caused to the appellant.
C 7 and C 8 memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank with respect to first presentation of cheque and its dishonoring due to insufficient funds in the account of the appellant Ext.
However, it was subsequently explained by the appellant that he did send a letter to the SHO of the said Police Station.
Memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank respectively with respect to presentation of cheque and its dishonoring on account of insufficient funds Ext.
Later on when the companyplainant approached the appellant informing him that the cheque has bounced the appellant asked the companyplainant to deposit the cheque again with an assurance that this time the cheque would be honoured but again the cheque when it was deposited on 15.5.93 was dishonored with the remarks insufficient funds.
C 4 was number tallying with the specimen signature of the appellant kept with the Bank, but on account of insufficient funds.
Besides that the original file of the civil suit No.2688/89 was summoned by the Bar Council.
40,000/ to be paid to the plaintiffs of the suit, we modify the order of the Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India of suspending the appellants licence to practice for a period five years by reducing it to two and a half years, provided the appellant also deposits interest on Rs.
C 4 bears the signature of the appellant.
Prayer clause was also amended.
The amount mentioned in paras 39, 40, 42, 43 and addition of para 50 with respect to companyrt fee was done by the appellant as the same were number in existence when the plaint was filed at the first instance.
The circumstances established in the present case speak for themselves and candidly point out towards the misconduct companymitted by the appellant.
The appellant is alleged to have charged Rs.25,102/ towards payment of companyrt fee and also Rs.389/ for miscellaneous charges total amounting to Rs.25,491/ , and also a further sum of Rs.6,500/ out of which Rs.3,500/ was paid through cheque and a sum of Rs.3,000/ in cash.
C 6 and Ext.
The appellant denied his signature on Ext.
It is further apparent that alignment of the amount of Rs.140/ companyrt fees paid for parties was number typed at the same time as the alignment of the type clearly shows that particulars and objects mentioned at the top of the companyumn horizontally same alignment whereas figure of Rs.140 is slightly below which clearly indicates that this was put subsequently.
C 4 was that of the appellant.
Dishonoring of the cheque issued by the appellant Ex.
25, 102/ and also did number take any steps towards the progress of the case.
C 14 the certificate issued by the S.H.O., Police Station, Tilak Marg, New Delhi dated 28.7.95 to the effect that numbercomplaint was received from the appellant regarding theft of cheque book at Police Station, Tilak Marg.
The companyplainant was number beneficiary of Ex.
C 4 was number tallying with the appellants specimen signature kept with the bank.
Before the Bar Council of India the companyplainant examined herself as well as got exhibited various documents, namely, Ext.
Moreover, during the companyrse of hearing of the case, we ourselves examined and companypared the admitted signature of the appellant with that of Ext.
The said cheque bounced due to insufficient funds.
This circumstance shows that the signature on Ext.
Moreover, SHO, Tilak Marg Police Station gave a certificate Ext.
40,000/ in the Court which has been invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank.
Since the said companyplaint companyld number be decided within the stipulated time it stood transferred to Bar Council of India.
C 1, C 2 and C 4.
The valuation of the suit given in the plaint originally filed was purposely kept vague which was subsequently amended without the knowledge of the companyplainant.
38,000/ deposited by the appellant in this Court and an interest accrued on the fixed deposit shall be adjusted towards interest payable by the appellant.
On companyparison, we found striking similarity between the admitted signature and that of the disputed one and there is numberreason to doubt the genuineness of the signature on Ext.
These established circumstances stated above, clearly show that the signature on Exts.
C 8 issued by the bank clearly show that signature of the appellant on Ext.
The said cheque was drawn on UCO Bank and the same was deposited in the Central Bank of India in the account of Union, viz.,
These numberices were number replied to by the appellant which is a material circumstance against the appellant when, receipt of the numberices sent to him have been admitted.
Had the signature on Ext.
The amount numbermally would have been credited in the account of M s. Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi.
C 4 been different, the bank would have returned the same with the remark that the signature on Ext.
C/4 by the bank on account of insufficient fund in the account of the appellant.
However, since the appellants companynsel has given an undertaking on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the appellant would companyform to the standards of the legal profession and further, he has deposited a sum of Rs.
Clarification of the companyrt fee amount was also made and paras 39, 40, 42 and 43 of the plaint were also amended.
Shri R.K.Jain, learned senior companynsel, while companycluding his argument prayed that we may take a lenient view of the matter in view of the fact that the appellant has deposited the entire money companyered by Ext.
The original plaint was summoned by the Bar Council and after examining it the Bar Council recorded the following findings A prima facie look at this makes it clear that in companyumn No.5 stamp paper towards companyrt fees companyumn has been left blank and numberfigure has been mentioned therein.
But, in numbermal companyrse, FIR is number lodged by letter at the first instance.
C 3 case file of the civil suit filed before the High Court of Delhi Ext.
The Bar Council after companysidering the entire material found that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,102/ from the respondent towards payment of companyrt fee which he never deposited in the Court and Ext.
As stated above, the cheque bounced number on account of the fact that the signature on Ext.
25,491/ , he gave a cheque for a sum of Rs.
Thus, it appears that figure of Rs.140/ and Rs.2.75 have been typed subsequently.
C 1 receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of Rs.6,500/ Ext.
On being so told by the companyplainant the appellant after realising his mistake issued a cheque dated 31.3.93 for a sum of Rs.
The companyplainant on an enquiry found that the appellant has misappropriated a sum of Rs.
C 4 and companytended that his signature was forged by the companyplainant.
The learned companynsel also gave an undertaking on behalf of the appellant that he would number repeat such a companyduct.
C 4 was number objected to by the bank, but the same was returned with the remark insufficient fund.
C 4, issued by the appellant was in favour of M s. Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi.
The legal profession is known as a numberle profession having high traditions and has been catering to the need of the society for a very long time past.
Under such circumstances the companyplainant filed a companyplaint before the Delhi Bar Council.
C 2 another receipt dated 6.10.89 which was in respect of a sum of Rs.25,102/ Ext.
No FIR lodged with regard to theft of the cheque book.
Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi.
The aforesaid facts show that the valuation of the suit was purposely kept vague when the plaint was filed for the first time so that the respondent complainant may number able to know as to the actual amount of companyrt fee affixed on the plaint.
In paragraph 50 which was a new paragraph at page 20 of the plaint, the value of each prayer has been tentatively fixed at Rs.200/ and the companyrt fee of Rs.20/ on each prayer has been affixed on the plaint were mentioned.
The memos Ext.
C 1, C 2 and C 4 were that of the appellant himself.
9 per annum.
38,000/ which is Ext.
The companyplainant alleged that when the appellant realized that the companyplainant has companye to know that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.
As seen earlier the cheque Ext.
The account payee cheque obviously was number issued in the name of the companyplainant.
C 12 and C 13 dated 9.6.93 and 11.1.93, respectively.
38,000/ w.e.f 31.3.93 till the date of payment of money to the plaintiffs Rs.
By the aforesaid cheque the companyplainant was number going to gain anything out of it.
The appellant gave receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of Rs.6,500/ as well as receipt dated 6.10.89 for a sum of Rs.25,102/ .
It is in this companytext that it was urged before the Bar Council of India that some hand writing expert be examined in order to find out the genuineness of the signature on Ext.
25,102/ was misappropriated by the appellant under the pretext of payment of the companyrt fee for the suit filed by the plaintiffs, that the appellant did number press the application for injunction, and that the appellant misled the companyplainant as regards the progress of the case.
The companyplainant then sent a numberice dated 9.6.93 which remained unreplied.
Thus, this circumstance also shows that there was numberreason for the companyplainant to forge the signature of the appellant on Exts.
The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.
But the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
No reply to the numberices Exts.
The companyplainant sent two numberices on behalf of M s Siemens Union to the appellant wherein she inter alia alleged, that a sum of Rs.
On 26.9.89 the plaint was re filed and a new para 50 was added.
38,000/ on account of refund of companyrt fee amount along with interest.
The facts that emerge out of the companyplaint filed by the companyplainant are these Some time in September 1989, the companyplainant engaged the appellant for filing a suit for injunction on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi.
N. KHARE, J. This appeal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as he Act at the instance of the appellant who is a practicing Advocate of the High Court of Delhi as well as an Advocate on Record of this Court is directed against the order dated 2.3.1998 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on a companyplaint filed by the respondent hereinafter referred to as companyplainant whereby the Bar Council of India after having found that the appellant has companymitted professional misconduct, suspended his licence to practice for a period of five years.
