Case No.127/88.
He, therefore, advised the companyplainant that he should pay a balance of Rs.13,500 and the companyplain ant accordingly paid the said balance sum.
The companyplainant was advised by the police to make an application to the Bar Council against Shri Devendra Bhai Mehta.
The companyplainant was in need of finan cial accommodation and was in search of a reliable financier and Mr. Balu Bhai Modi impressed the companyplainant that they would give financial accommodation on being satisfied about the documents of security.
Shri Balubhai Modi got a false companyplaint lodged against the companyplainant in Social Security Branch on September 5, 1986.
He was also assured that since the properties were valuable and in excellent companydition a lower rate of interest would be companysidered and he was also told that a loan up to Rs.7 lakhs would be advanced to him provided the companyplainant would be advanced to him provided the companyplainant would pay a draft or cash at the rate of 5 and 1/2 on the advance of the amount of loan towards legal and other expense.
Accordingly, he had looked into the docu ments placed before him by Shri Balubhai Modi and the company plainant and prepared the draft deed for mortgage and he had also advised his client Shri Balubhai Modi for companypliance of the companyditions mentioned in the draft deed before advance ment of loan so that his client Shri Modi was properly secured.
Thereafter Shri devendra Mehta had inspected the documents and returned most of the original documents and assured the companyplainant that he would get loan in a few days.
The companyplain ant respondent also deposed before the Disciplinary Commit tee of the State Bar Council and had applied for issuing summons to the witnesses namely to the deponents of the affidavits affirmed by Shri Munjibhai M. Shah and Shri Devendra Shashikant Dyanmhotre, who had stated in their affidavits that they had also become victim of fraudulent action and cheating by the said Shri Balubhai Modi in companyni vance with the appellant Devendra Mehta.
The companyplainant alleged that because of the friendly relationship by the racketeers including the said Shri Balubhai Modi and Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta with the police, numberhing was heard about his companyplaint but ultimately on the personal intervention by the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, his application was duly registered and Shri Balub hai Modi was chargesheeted in Criminal Case No.
4437 of 1990.
Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta, thereafter, made all attempts to delay the advancement of loans by unending demands and the company plainant had to forward about 200 documents to Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta, but Shri Mehta ultimately companyveyed to the companyplainant through Shri Balu Bhai Modi that as the clear ance certificate under Section 230 A i of the Income Tax Act had number reached the Office of the companycerned authorities and as the said advancement of loan was very heavy, he would neither advance his share of finance number he would agree to the disbursement until a sum of Rs.10,000 would be handed to Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta.
Shri Balu Bhai Modi told the companyplainant to pay to Shri Devendra Mehta within a week and he instructed the typist to put the date as April 17, 1986 by which date the companyplainant would pay the balance sum of Rs.13,500.
The companyplainant caused an enquiry and came to know that the Certificate under Section 230 A i had reached the office on June 5, 1986.
1897 of 1988 in the High Court of Bombay inter alia chal lenging the legality and validity of the said companyplaint proceeding before the State Bar Council.
The appellant had only rendered the professional service as an Advocate in a fair and proper manner.
He was also informed that a meeting of the financiers would be held including Mr. Devendra Bhai Mehta who was one of such finan ciers.
Shri Devendra Mehta also promised that he would see that the loan proposal was passed in the internal group of meeting of the financiers of which he himself was one of the financiers and he would ensure that Shri Balu Bhai Modi would sanction the loan as early as possible.
The appellant did number companye into the picture at all when the companyplainant pursuant to the advertisement had companytacted Shri Balubhai Modi.
The companyplainant also alleged in his petition of companyplaint to the State Bar Council that Shri Devendra Bhai Mehta had indulged in fraudulent activities in respect of other persons and a list of witness was attached to the said latter of companyplaint.
Case No.127 of 1988 is the subject matter of Civil appeal No.
Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta also represented to the companyplainant that he was himself a member of the internal group of the financiers who would advance the loan and hence he was number only preparing the mortgage deed for the proposed loan but also scrutinising it for his own satisfaction.
As the companyplainant case before the State Bar Council, companyld number be disposed of within the statutory period , the companyplaint stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and numbered as B.C.I. Tr.
It, however, appears that the State Bar Council of Maharashtra overruled such objections of the appellant.
The companyplainant alleged that thereafter he had companytacted Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta who represented to the companyplainant that if the companyplainant companyld number pay the balance of Rs.13,500 in a week, how internal group of finan ciers would believe that the companyplainant would repay the loan of Rs.7 lakhs.
The Disciplinary Committee also came to the finding that a case of professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 had been established against the appel lant.
The appellant in an attempt to stall the proceeding before the State Bar Council moved a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No.
The Disciplinary Committee also came to the finding that the appellant in companynivance with the companyplainant defrauded the companyplainant in receiving large sum of money on the pretext of legal expenses and other incidental companyts for advancing the proposed loan to the companyplainant but such loan was never advanced to the companyplainant and instead of disbursing the loan.
The companyplainant informed him that he would pay the balance to Shri Devendra Mehta at the time of disbursement of loan.
As aforesaid, the judgment dated June 30, 1990 in the B.C.I. Tr.
He also assured the companyplainant that once the mortgage deed was drafted by him the companyplainant would get loan within ten days because thereafter only the formalities were required to be gone into.
The companyplainant on such representation agreed to get financial loan through the said Balu Bhai Modi.
The said Shri Mehta induced the companyplainant to part with money for legal expenses and informed the companyplainant that out of 5, and 1/2 of the amount of loan required to be paid by the companyplainant by way of legal expenses, Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta would keep 3 and 1/2 for the stamp duty payable to the Government and he also represented that the disbursement companyld be expedited only if the companyplainant would pay cash to Balubhai Modi on April 10, 1986.
The companyplainant further alleged that despite such payment and other steps taken by the companyplainant, instead of disbursing the proposed loan, Shri Balu Bhai Modi lodged a false companyplaint against the companyplainant in Social Security Branch of Bombay Police on September 5, 1986.
It has been companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the appellant is a practising companynsel and he was engaged by the said Shri Balubhai Modi for preparing the documents of mortgage, on inspection of the records of the companyplainant for advancing the proposed loan for Rs.
From the Order dated 30.6.1990 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I. TR Case No.
It may be numbered here that Mahesh R. Shah CW 4 an advocate had acted for Praful chandra Shah in Criminal Case.
The appellant in his professional capacity had to give his advice.
1110/86.
The learned companynsel has further submit ted that it is an admitted case that thereafter the company plainant got another document prepared by somebody else and the appellant refused to approve such document because the same was number drafted by him and he did number want to take any responsibility in the matter on the basis of a document number drafted by him.
seven lakhs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
10,000 from the companyplainant respondent on July 11, 1986.
On April 10, 1986 the companyplainant went to the office of Shri Balu B. Modi and handed over to him a sum of Rs.25,000 for the loan of Rs.7 lakhs 14.
127 of 1988 arising out of the companyplaint made before the Bar Council of Maharashtra in D.C. No.22 of 1987.Shri Ramesh Chandra Vit haldas Sheth made a companyplaint on February 9, 1987 to the C. No.21 of Bar Council of Maharastra against the respondent Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta,an Advocate practising in Bombay inter alia alleging professional misconduct against the said advocate.
When the companyplaint case was pending before the Disci plinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Maharashtra, the said Disciplinary Committee called upon the appellant to file and affidavit.
The learned companynsel has companytended that such action on the part of the appellant clearly indicates that the appellant was a responsible lawyer who wanted to safe guard the interest of his client and despite request he did number agree to approve any document number drafted by him.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India scrutinised and analysed the evidences and materials on record and by giving elaborate reasoning, the Disciplinary Committee inter alia came to the finding that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that there was a racket for defrauding and or cheating to aspirant loanees and Shri Balubhai Modi and the appellant advocate were parties to such racket.
Pursuant to the direction of the State Bar Council of Maharashtra, the appellant filed an affidavit dated November 26, 1987 indicating therein the particulars of the documents drafted by the appellant at the instance of the said Shri Balubhai Modi for advancing loans to different persons intending to get loan accommodation.
It was represented to the company plainant that a firm of Solicitors run by the said Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta would examine the papers for the purpose of financing and the said Shri Devendra Bhai Mehta was also an investor.
The Disciplinary Commit tee of Bar Council of India examined and recorded evidences of Prafulchandra Shah CW 2 , Munjibhai M. Shah CW 3 , Shashikant D. Dyanmhotre CW 5 , Bhawanji Bharot CW 6 and Mahesh Ramanlal Shah CW 4 .
The companyplainant alleged that an inspection of factory and other premises at Jhalod was made by Shri Balu Bhai and he was informed that the said properties were in excellent companydition and the estimated value was Rs.12 lakhs.
He, howev er, paid Rs.10,000 in July,1986 to Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta in the presence of Shri Balu Bhai Modi, when Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta told the companyplainant that he would issue the receipt at the time of the disbursement of the loan and he should be trusted.
The appellant op posed examination of such persons as witnesses in the pro ceedings inter alia on the ground that the said affidavits had disclosed independent grievances of the deponents and the said deponents had number companyplained before the Bar Coun cil.
4437 of 1990.
The Disciplinary Committee had also companye to the finding that it was established that the appellant had received Rs.
Case No.
127 of 1988.
Satish Chandra, V.B. Joshi and Umesh Bhagwat for the Appellant.
Respondent in person NP The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. Ray, J. This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated June 30, 1990 passed by the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocate Act, 1961 in BCL Tr.
The appellant and companyplainant had also deposed in the said disciplinary proceeding before the Bar Council of India and their respective statements were also recorded.
Thereafter a meeting was arranged at the residence of the said Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta and in such meeting Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta falsely represented to the companyplaint that he was an advocate of the firm of solicitors M s Dayalji and Deepchand and he worked only for the genuine financiers and he would look to the interests of the loan seekers.
The learned companynsel has companytended that only in the capacity of an Advocate engaged by a cli ent, the appellant had drafted the deed of mortgage and he had also clearly indicated to the companyplainant and also to the said Shri Balubhai Modi when the Conference was held in his place that for advancement of loan, the mortgage deed as drafted by him should be executed and the companyplainant should fulfil the terms and companyditions indicated by the appellant in the draft deed.
It has also been submitted by the learned companynsel that admittedly the companyplainant was referred to the appellant in his capacity as a legal practitioner engaged by the said Shri Balubhai Modi and or the financiers.
Since the companyplainant failed to satisfy the terms and companyditions as drafted by the appellant, he had advised Shri Balubhai Modi that he companyld number approve the advancement of loan.
Such Writ Petition, however, was rejected by the Bombay High Court on April 27, 1988 and the matter thereafter proceeded before the State Bar Council and then stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India.
Shri Balu B. Modi told the typist to prepare the stamp receipt and also informed the companyplainant to arrange for the payment of balance of Rs.13,500.
The companyplainant thereafter made an appli cation to the C.I.D. Branch of Bombay Police on September 8, 1986.
It was alleged by the respondent companyplainant,that he carries on business of manufacturing at Jhalod and he owns a proprietary firm named as M s Ravi Dyechem Manufacturing Industries and M s Vithaldas Dye Stuff Manufacturing Company.
