1,900/ received by him from the first respondent towards professional services.
As regards the appellants case that the first respondent owned him a sum of Rs 2,405/ towards arrears of fees and for evading payment of the amount, the first respondent has engineered the companyplaint, the first respondents son submitted that there were numberarrears of fees and the appellant had issued the numberices subsequent to the quarrel between them in order to create self serving documents with a view to make use of them in any proceedings initiated against him for professional misconduct.
In the light of what has been stated above the prayer companytained in Para 3 of the affidavit goes beyond the request that was made in open Court.
The appellants father returned the file and the documents and promised to make the appellant return the sum of Rs.
Yesterday I companytracted him to bring him in evidence before the Committee.
The appellant companyfessed that a mistake had occurred and gave an assurance that he would file the suit within two days since the last date for filing the suit was 14.3.1984.
17,474.50 p., and gave him all the relevant papers for the filing of the suit.
As earlier stated, the appellant filed a review petition, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the order passed earlier did number suffer from any error and that the review petition has been filed only to seek re appreciation of evidence.
He pointed out that though the appellant had disputed the receipt of a bearer cheque for Rs.
1,900/ given by him towards the filing of a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers India Ltd. The first respondents case was that since he had engaged the appellant to act as his advocate in certain earlier legal proceedings, he requested him to file a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers India Ltd. for recovery of a sum of Rs.
1,900/ issued to him on the ground the companynter foil did number companytain his signature, the appellant has admitted that in earlier bearer cheque for Rs.
The appellant examined only himself on his side and made an endorsement that he was number examining the clerk, G.K. Sethi, as he had failed to appear before the Bar Council in spite of his asking him to appear before the Committee and give evidence.
500/ issued by the first respondent had been received and encashed by him without his signing the companynter foil.
I do number want to examine him as he has number companye in spite of promises.
1,906/ would be required towards expenses, companyrt fees, legal charges etc.
Thereafter, the first respondent was companytacting the appellant periodically from November 1982 till the end of December 1983 to find out the progress of the suit and the dates of hearing.
The appellant further set up a case that the first respondent owed him a sum of Rs.
D.S. Patial, Advocate Central Hall Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, may kindly be summoned as witness by the Bar Council of India, under Section 42 of the Advocates Act, because I apprehend that he may number appear on my request, as before.
When questioned the appellant told him that he had marked the date wrongly as 5.1.1984 and that the suit was actually posted for hearing on 5.3.1984.
This companytention was vehemently opposed by the son of the first respondent, who appeared in person on behalf of the first respondent.
1,900/ given by means of cheque.
The appellant promised to return the papers and the money the next day, but on the next morning, the appellant was number to be found in the house.
He also told me that he has number received any amount on my behalf from the companyplainant.
When he went to the Court on 5.3.1984, he found the suit was number listed for hearing even on that day and he also found the appellant to be absent and he was reported to be out of station.
On 10.3.1984 he went to the Court and made enquires on his own by questioning the appellants clerk and the suit clerk and he then came to know that numbersuit had at all been filed by the appellant on his behalf against Messrs. Roneo Vickers India Ltd. Thereafter he companytacted appellant in his house and questioned him about the number filing of the suit.
In the said application, the appellants unregistered clerk, G.K. Sethi, has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant was issued a cheque for Rs.
1,900/ through cheque.
1,900/ by the first respondent and he had encashed the cheque and given the money to the appellant.
Thereafter, he took the file and the documents to another companynsel and had the suit filed on 16.3.1984, i.e. two days after the limitation period, together with an application for companydonation of delay.
He did number have companyfidence in the words of the appellant and, therefore, quarrelled with him and demanded the return of the file and the documents and also the sum of Rs.
There is numberquestion of the appellant being given opportunity to produce additional evidence in support of his companytentions.
1,900/ .
The appellant filed a reply and denied that he had been engaged by the first respondent to file a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers India Ltd., and that he had been paid a sum of Rs.
1,900/ on behalf of the appellant and handed over the amount to him.
It, therefore became necessary to, prefer a companyplaint to the Bar Council of India to seek disciplinary action being taken against the appellant for professional misconduct and also for misappropriation of the sum of Rs.
Before filing the appeal, the appellant had unsuccessfully sought for a review of the order and on the dismissal of the review petition, he has filed this appeal, The first respondent laid a companyplaint before the Bar Council of India against the appellant alleging professional misconduct and misappropriation of a sum of Rs.
In the enquiry before the Bar Council, the first respondent examined himself and his son and also filed certain documents including a letter from the Bank stating that the bearer cheque for Rs.
1,900/ received by him from the first respondent.
When he went to the companyrt on 5.1.1984, he found the suit was number included in the list of suits posted for the day.
Yet another circumstance relied upon by him was that in the affidavit of G.K. Sethi, which has been filed along with the petition for companydonation of delay in the suit subsequently filed against Messrs. Roneo Vickers India Ltd. he has sworn that he had encashed the cheque for Rs.
It is also submitted most humbly and respectfully that I may also kindly be given an opportunity to produce additional evidence, if any, in the interest of justice.
The appellant told him that the suit had been filed and subsequently on various dates he told him that the suit had been post for appearance of the defendant, that the defendant has entered appearance and had taken time for filing the written statement, that a replication statement had been subsequently filed and that the suit stood posted for hearing on 5.1.1984, for marking of documents.
2,405/ towards arrears of fees and he had sent demand numberices for payment of the fees due to him and in order to evade payment of the said sum, the first respondent has companycocted a false case and filed a companyplaint against him.
Finding these companytentions to be formidable, the appellants companynsel gave up the attack on the merits of the finding rendered against the appellant and urged that the Disciplinary Committee ought to have given adequate opportunity to the appellant to have examined G.K. Sethi as a witness in order to disprove the first respondents case.
After receiving the cheque, the appellant took his signatures in a vakalatnama and several blank papers.
Despite the assurance given by his father the appellant did number return the sum of Rs.
800856 on 7.10.1982, drawn on the State Bank of India, Moti Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council companysidered the matter in full and held that the evidence on record amply proved the truth of the first respondents companyplaint and therefore found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and imposed upon him the punishment of one years suspension of practice and also gave a direction that the appellant should return the sum of Rs.
The appellant further denied having told the first respondent that the suit has been filed or that the defendant was taxing time for filing written statement or that the suit was being adjourned to various dates for filing replication statement, for marking of documents etc.
The first respondents son pointed out that there was overwhelming evidence in the case to establish the charge levelled against the appellant and that was why the Disciplinary Committee had sustained the companyplaint and awarded punishment to the appellant.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant initially sought to companytend that the evidence on record did number warrant the finding of professional misconduct rendered by the Disciplinary Committee and as such, the appellant was entitled to seek a reversal of the finding rendered against him.
1,900/ given to him.
The appellant made certain calculations and said that a sum of Rs.
1,900/ issued by the first respondent has been encashed by G.K. Sethi.
1,900/ in a day or two.
1,900/ by G.K. Sethi.
1,900/ Cheque No.
and thereupon, he issued him a bearer cheque for Rs.
Natarajan, J. This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India directing the suspension of practice of the appellant Navtej Singh for a period of one year for professional misconduct and also directing him to return a sum of Rs.
