The disciplinary proceedings out of which this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 Act for short has arisen were initiated on a companyplaint made by a group of 12 advocates practising in the two companyrts of Sub Divisional Magistrates in the Collectorate of Poona alleging various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant P.D. Khandekar and one A. N. Agavane.
Regarding the incident of February 22, 1974, there was a companyplete denial that the appellant drew up an affidavit companytaining a recital that Smt.
It further observed that it was unfortunate that the appellant and Agavane did number advise Smt.
Sonubai Girju Valekar of Loni Bhapkar, Tehsil Baramati, District Poona had made a gift of her lands to her grand daughter Smt.
100/ towards their professional fee on the faith of an assurance that the affidavit sworn by them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poona to the effect they had divorced their respective spouses and had got married at Poona on January 7, 1974 as per Hindu rites would be sufficient proof of their marriage.
According to them, the appellant and Agavane sometimes impersonated as other advocates for whom the briefs were meant and at times they directly approached the clients and adopted questionable methods charging exorbitant fees.
The testimony of Smt.
Dhavale was prepared on their instructions as they represented that they had divorced their respective spouses and expressed that they wanted to marry each other on that very day and leave Poona.
In dealing with the question of punishment to be imposed on them, the Disciplinary Committee observes We take into companysideration the age of the advocates, the families they have to maintain, the environments in which they practise and the standard which is maintained in such an environment is number very high as the Bar Association Rules certify tourism and provide for toutism which companyld be unthinkable anywhere else.
2 On February 22, 1974 the appellant and Agavane drew up an affidavit companytaining a recital that Smt.
Incidentally, Smt.
The gravamen of the charge against the appellant and Agavane relates to the giving of improper legal advice on two specific companynts, namely 1 On January 7, 1974 the appellant and Agavane are alleged to have got the remarriage of a companyple S.B. Potdar and Smt.
It further appears that the appellant and Agavane were two junior lawyers who preferred number to become members of the association, but started their practice sitting under a tree in the Court precincts.
The appellant virtually pleads that the case against him is a frame up.
Sonubai.
The companyplainants alleged various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant and Agavane.
Both the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council however found the appellant and Agavane to be guilty of giving improper legal advice and held the charge of professional misconduct proved, but having regard to the fact that they were junior members of the bar, the Disciplinary Committee has taken a lenient view and passed the sentence indicated above.
As to the incident of January 7, 1974, the appellant pleads that the affidavit sworn by Potdar and Smt.
Dhavale to part with Rs.
There is numberhing unprofessional for an advocate to draft an affidavit on the instructions of his client.
The document was signed by both Potdar and Smt.
The State Bar Council referred to four specific charges relating to them, two of impersonation as A.D. Ghospurkar and N.L. Thatte and depriving these gentlemen of the briefs meant for them.
The testimony of Smt.
With respect to the first charge, it held that they had misled their clients Potdar and Smt.
Dhavale that the affidavit sworn by them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the certificate of marriage issued by him would make them legally married according to Hindu rites although numbermarriage was ever performed.
The charge is that she had met all the lawyers except these two and all of them advised her to give the market value of he land intended to be gifted and pay ad valorem stamp duty thereon indicating the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges payable, but these two lawyers told her that she should number unnecessarily spend a large amount over the stamp duty and registration charges and they would instead have the work done within an amount of Rs.
Mangala which he handed over to her on receipt of Rs.
First as to the facts.
It observed that if the gift deed companyld number be executed because Smt.
The case against the appellant and Agavane rests upon professional misconduct and number any other companyduct.
The accusation is that the appellant and Agavane induced Potdar and Smt.
The Disciplinary Committee has recorded a finding that it did number companysider that the companyduct of the appellant and Agavane amounted to cheating their clients, and that both were guilty of giving improper legal advice, but these were number cases of a bona fide mistake of a lawyer.
Sonubai had made a gift of her lands to her grand daughter Smt.
His case is that they represented that the priest was insisting upon an affidavit as regards their divorce as a precaution before performing their marriage and therefore they wanted to swear an affidavit to that effect.
50/ which was finally settled at Rs.
Sonubai had numbersufficient funds to bear the companyt of stamp duty and registration charges payable, the affidavit was numbersubstitute for that as it would hardly be evidence of a gift.
45/ as his professional fee.
Presumably, the gentlemen of the bar who were members of the association found that their activities were prejudicial to their interests because they directly got in touch with the clients and did the same kind of work with impunity by adopting similar questionable methods.
As regards the second charge, the Disciplinary Committee held them to be guilty of number giving proper legal advice to their client Smt.
The evidence with regard to the second charge, namely, that the appellant and Agavane were guilty of number giving proper legal advice to Smt.
The oral evidence adduced by the companyplainant was number sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the recitals companypled with the other circumstances appearing.
Dhavale and also attested by one Gangadhar Laxman Jamkhedkar who claimed to have 15 acted as the priest and said to have solemnised the marriage.
The State Bar Council held that these two charges have number been substantiated and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has number gone into them.
The charges levelled against the appellant and Agavane are serious enough and if true in a case like the present, the punishment has to be deterrent, but the question still remains whether the charges have been proved.
She however states that she was living with Potdar as she was under the belief that she had been married to him.
Mangala Ramesh Ghorpade.
The proceedings stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Act.
Leelawati Dhavale performed although their divorce was number legal.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by its order dated April 23, 1976 held both the appellant and A.N. Agavane guilty of professional misconduct and directed that the appellant be suspended for a period of four months from June 1, 1976 and Agavane for a period of two months therefrom.
this Court by its order dated September 24, 1976 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the suspension of order.
