For this purpose a, letter of authorisation to enable the appellant to receive the amount was also issued, Pursuant to the letter of authorisation and instructions, a total amount of Rs.
Out of this, he paid only Rs.
Therefore, the respondent preferred a. companyplaint before the Bar Council of India on 9.1.81.
64,000 shall be paid over to the plaintiff the balance was to be paid to the respondent and possession of suit property was to be handed over to the respondent by the companyrt receiver.
It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.
Accordingly, the punishment was increased to one of suspension for a period of five years, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct and keeping in view the motto that the punishment must be companymensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1983 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I. Tr.
The appellant was issued a numberice by the Bar Council to which he submitted his reply.
That suit was companytinued.
It is equally admitted that the appellant had withdrawn the money from the Court Receiver.
500 to the companyplainant the respondent herein .
On companysideration of his reply and hearing the arguments, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, was of the view that the burden of proving the fact that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.
7 of 1978 praying for an interim injunction restraining the companyrt receiver from handing over possession to the respondent.
50,379 was withdrawn by the appellant from the companyrt receiver.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
50,379 lay on the appellant.
Ultimately the appellant was suspended for a period of two years and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.
18,000 and the rest was number paid.
The suit was ultimately companypromised on 14.6.77.
10,000 had been deposited by the appellant which has been withdrawn by the respondent as per order dated 3rd September, 1991.
It is incorrect to hold that the receipt dated 8.8.77 was a suspicious document merely because the account books were number produced, it would number follow that the payments made by the appellant companyld be disbelieved.
Bharat Sangal for the Appellant.
32 of 1982.
In the case on hand admittedly the companyplainant respondent does number know English.
R. Reddy, Addl.
by MOHAN, J. This is a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered.
After the companypromise decree was passed on 14.6.77 the appellant who was the companynsel for the respondent was requested to withdraw the amount lying with the companyrt receiver and hand over the same to the 1009 respondent.
6120 of 1983.
He filed CS No.
None of the companyrespondence addressed to the respondent mentioned about the receipt dated 8th of August, 1977.
Solicitor General, T. Ratnam and D.N. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
The brief facts are as under The respondent engaged the appellant as a companynsel in suit No.
During the pendency of the suit the companyrt receiver inducted one Usman Ghani Haji Mohamed as a tenant.
Case No.
The plea of the appellant that the account books had been lost was held to be untrue.
510 of 1964, this was in April, 1976.
Certain receipts produced to evidence payment to the respondent were number accepted.
It was ordered that out of the total amount lying with the companyrt receiver, a sum of Rs.
