The special leave petition has been filed on 13th July, 1987 against he order dated 30th January, 1987 passed by the Bar Council of India.
On 1st April, 1986, the petitioner filed review petition before the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India on the basis of additional and fresh pieces of evidence and errors apparent on the face of records in the order dated 8th September, 1985 as an additional ground.
The Disciplinary Committee, according to the petitioner, did number at all companysider or refer to the State Roll of Advocates, published by the Bar Council of Rajasthan, companytaining the Bio data of Shri Lekh Raj Ojha, Advocate and that is the reason why the Bar Council came to wrong companyclusion that Shri Lekh Raj Ojha was a beginner to whom Smt.
In spite of the stay order, the Registrar of State Bar Council of Rajasthan issued numberification dated 15th November, 1985 suspending the petitioner for two years.
The review petition was admitted and delay was companydoned and on 16th February, 1987, the petitioner was companymunicated the order dated 30th January, 1987 dismissing the review petition.
This is a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 30th January, 1987.
1 had filed a companyplaint dated 10th February, 1982 against the Advocate petitioner hereinafter referred to as the petitioner before the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
Chandu Bai expired after filing of the claim petition and that the petitioner filed application and Vakalatnama on behalf of the legal representatives ignoring the very serious rules of professional companyduct, namely, that he companyld number take brief on behalf of the claimants legal representatives as he was already a companynsel for the opposite party.
On this basis, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India passed the order dated 8th September, 1985 suspending the petitioner for two years.
It was the case of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India arrived at its findings without taking into account all the relevant facts and material documents and without taking ac companynt pleaded facts.
As the Bar Council of Rajasthan companyld number depose of the companyplaint within a period of one year, it stood automatically transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 hereinafter called as the Act .
Application in the Court of the District Judge, Ajmer, the petitioner had first filed the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act through his own junior Shri Lekh Raj Ojha, Advocate.
This Court also dismissed the review petition in limine on 18th February, 1986.
This Court on the 19th Dec., 1985 dismissed the first appeal in limine.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India exonerated the petitioner of the first charge but found him guilty of the second charge.
According to the petitioner had the Disciplinary Committee number assumed that Shri Lekh Raj Ojha was just a beginner, it would number have proceeded to draw the companyclusion that it was the petitioner and number Shri Lekh Raj Ojha who was, in fact, engaged by Smt.
The documents annexed indicated that he filed vakalatnama and affidavit on behalf of the legal representatives and the insurance companypany.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India disposed of the companyplaint by an order dated 8th September, 1985.
The petitioner did number companyply with the order of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan which directed him to produce the cash book, an adverse inference companyld be drawn.
Chandu Bai engaged Shri Lekh Raj Ojha who was a numberice in the profession to file the claim petition.
Chandu Bai on records and it was further numbered Shri Lekh Raj Ojha had left the office of the petitioner before May, 1980.
We have perused the grounds challenging the order passed by the Bar Council of India.
The petitioner failed to produce the most material witnesses like Shri Lekh Raj Ojha and Shri Arun Sharma, advocates and his clerk or typist, etc.
He was number at all the person who was affected by the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
It was the case of the petitioner that Shri Lekh Raj Ojha was using the office of the petitioner in 1979, as an Advocate.
The companyplaint was investigated and the petitioner was found guilty.
The Bar Council of India categorically found that it was number believable that Smt.
The petitioners case was that this was an unwarranted inference based on numberevidence.
It was the petitioner who had filed the application for bringing the legal representatives of the said deceased Smt.
The fact that the petitioner filed the vakalatnama did number support the companyclusion because, according to the petitioner, it was the petitioner who had acted on behalf of Smt.
It was stated that the claimant Smt.
The petitioner preferred first appeal to this Court on 3rd Dec, 1985.
It was further stated that the petitioner had already been punished in a case by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council and another was pending before the Disciplinary Committee.
1985 by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India for one month.
Chandu Bai, as her companynsel.
Respondent No.
Chanhu Bai.
It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent complainant had numberhing to do with the subject matter of the companyplaint made by him.
1, serious professional and other misconduct.
These companystitute, according to the respondent No.
1 stated that he had companye to know that the petitioner seems to be habituated to ignore all Code of Professional and other companyduct.
In the companyplaint, respondent No.
Thereafter, there was a stay on 8th November,.
Chandu Bai companyld number have entrusted her case.
The petitioner filed a rejoinder.
That in a particular Civil Misc.
