It was this suit which was withdrawn by the appellant.
Whether an Advocate acting bona fide and in good faith on the basis of oral instructions given by some one purporting to act on behalf of his client, would be guilty of professional misconduct or of an unwise or imprudent act, or negligence simpliciter, or culpable negligence punishable as professional misconduct?
Ashok, that he was in possession of the said cheques issued by Anantaraju and that numberamount was actually due from Anantaraju to the companyplainant Haradara.
The petitioner submits that when he himself went to the Court and verified he found to his great surprise that the suit is dismissed as settled out of companyrt and latter learnt that even the half of the institution companyrt fee is also taken by the first respondent within 10 days.
The appellant companyveyed information of the settlement of dispute by his numbere made on the docket.
2 herein who was attached to his Office and was practising along with him at his office at the material time.
In addition,the companyplainant PW 1 Haradara himself has admitted in his evidence that it was Gautam Chand who had introduce him to the appellant, and that he was in fact taken to the office of the appellant for filling the said suit, by Gautam Chand.
Gautam Chand RW 3 and Haradara PW 1 were friends.
Gautam Chand instructed the appellants and his companyleague respondent No.
It was later sought to be revived by application Misc.
The appellant was number specifically told as to what companystituted professional misconduct and what was the real companytent of the charge regarding the professional misconduct against him.
Anantaraju, however, did number execute the sale deed within the stipulated period and during the extended period It was in these circumstances that Gautam Chand RW 3 approached the appellant for legal advice.
The petitioner submits that he has number received either the suit amount or the refund of companyrt fee and he is number aware of the dismissal of the suit as settled out of companyrt.
On the same date, a numberice was separately issued on behalf ot the companyplainant Haradara addressed to Anantaraju demanding certain amounts due on the three self bearer cheques aggregating, Rs.30,098 issued by Anantaraju in companyrse of their mutual transactions.
This numberice was issued by the Advocate respondent No.2 acting on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara.
2 Ashok Advocate.
The object of the suit was achieved.
As the case companyld number be companycluded within the prescribed time limit the matter came to be transferred to the Bar Council of India which has heard arguments and rendered the order under appeal.
An interlocutary application was moved on behalf of Haradara by respondent No.
The petitioner submits that the matter in dispute in the suit was number settled at all and the first respon dent without the knowledge and without the instructions of the petitioner has filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out of Court and got the suit dismissed and he has also received half of the institution companyrt fee within l0 days since the PG NO 366 date of the disposal of the suit.
2 as his Advocate seeking the attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the defendant Anantaraju.
The defence of the appellant that he had withdrawn the suit in the circumstances mentioned by him required to be companysidered in the light of his admissions.
He received earnest money in the sum of rupees 35,000 from Gautam Chand.
The suit instituted in the name of the companyplainant Haradara was only for the benefit of Gautam Chand by reference to his interest in the property.
A sketch was drawn on the back of the companyer to enable the person carrying the brief to the junior companyleague to locate his office in order to companyvey the instructions as per the endorsement made by the appellant.
Gautam Chand was desirous of stops to induce Anantaraju to execute the sale deed in his favour.
There was numberconflict of interests as between Gautam Chand and Haradara.
Since even on the admission of the companyplainant himself he was taken to the office of the appellant for instituting the suit, by RW 3 Gautam Chand, and old client of th appellant whose dispute with the defendant against whom the companyplainant had filed the suit existed at the material time and was being handled by the appellant.
After satisfying himself, respondent No.
On a survey of the legal landscape in the area of disciplinary proceedings this scenario emerges In exercise of powers under section 35 companytained in Chapte V entitled companyduct of Advocates, on receipt of PG NO 369 a companyplaint against an Advocate or suo motu if the State Bar Council has reason to believe that any Advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct.
2 Ashok Advocate by Gautam Chand PW 3 .
A suit being O.S. No.
The publication of this numberice was relied upon subsequently on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara by his advocate respondent No.
Besides.
Subsequently the defendant Anantaraju executed the sale deed dated 27th Nov., 1981 in favour of Gautam Chand.
Thus Misc.
The petitioner submits that when he enquired about the further date of hearing the respondents did number give the date and said that they would verify the next date of hearing since they have number attended the case since the case was posted for filing written statement by the defendant.
The version of the appellant may number be unfolded One Gautam Chand R.W.3 has been a longstanding Client of the appellant.
30,000 and odd through Gautam Chand and that he did number know the defendant intimately or closely.
He used to get only companymission.
Anantaraju was their companymon adversary.
The Court passed order dated 10.12.1981 dismissing the suit, O.S. No.
At the point of time when the suit was withdrawn, respondent No.
The plaintiff Haradara has number objected to it at any time.
Gautam Chand had business dealing with the plaintiff Haradara and the Defendant Anantaraju.
The appellant was already handling, a case on behalf of RW 3 Gautam Chand against RW 4 Anantharaju.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.1986 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in B.C.I. Transfer Case No.
The papers were delivered to respondent No.
It was instituted on 30.6.1981.
The Petitioner submits that the said suit was filed by the first respondent who was then a Junior of the Second respondent.
30,000 and odd, from the defendant Anantaraju on the basis of the aforesaid cheques.
He drew a diagram of the location of residence of the respondent No.
16 of 1982 Application for restoration of suit is pending in Civil Court.
It was at the instance and inspiration of RW 3 Gautam Chand that the suit had been instituted by the companyplainant, but really he was the numberinee of Gautam Chand and that the companyplainant himself had numberreal claim on his own.
He caused the Publication of a numberice stating that the property in question was the subject matter of an agreement between Anantaraju and himself and it should number be dealt with by anyone.
Ashok in seeking an order of attachment.
Even though the plaintiff Haradara gained knowledge of the disposal of suit, he did number meet the appellant number did he address him for over 1 1/2 years until May, 1983.
It is the companymon case of parties that Gautam Chand introduced the companyplainant Haradara to the appellant and his companyleague Advocate respondent No.
He also admitted that the cheques used to be passed in favour of the party and that he was number entitled to the entire amount.
The Court accepted his submissions and passed the order of attachment.
O.S. 1965/81 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The suit was a suit for recovery of Rs.30,098 Suit No.
The application Misc.
It appears that the companyplainant had entrusted the brief to the appellant which he in his turn had entrusted to his junior companyleague respondent No.
Gautam Chand RW 3 and the companyplainant Haradara acted in interest and scoured the attachment of property which was the subject matter of an agreement to sell in favour of Gautam Chand.
2 The appellant caused the issue of numberice dated 1.6.1981 Ex.
The sale deed was in PG NO 368 fact executed during the subsistence of the order of attachment companycerning the same property.
316 ot 1987.
An application for restoration was filed on the last date of limitation on 11.1.1982.
The allegations made by the companyplainant against the appellant are embodied in paragraphs 1 2 of his companyplaint The petitioner submits that he entrusted a matter to the Second Respondent to file a case against Shri S. Anantaraju for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,098 with Court companyts and current interest in Case No.
Disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him.
On the docket of the brief pertaining to the suit, the appellant made an endorsement giving instructions to withdraw the suit as settled.
He did number also immediately apply for the restoration of suit.
1965 of 1981 was instituted on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara claiming on amount of Rs.
It transpires from the records that it was admitted by the companyplainant that he was number maintaining any account books in regard to the business and he was number an Income tax assessee.
16 of 1982 was later allowed to be dismissed for default on 30.7.1982.
R 1A at page 14 Additional Documents .
The property was in fact the subject of an agreement to sell between Anantaraju and Gautam Chand RW 3 The Court initially declined to grant an order of attachment.
1965 of 1981.
Consistently, the appellant had reasons to believe the information of settlement of dispute companyveyed by the three parties together on 9.12.1981.
R/15 on behalf of Gautam Chand addressed to PG NO 367 the seller Anantaraju calling upon him to execute the sale dead.
The decision to file a suit on behalf of the companyplainant against RW 4 Anantharaju was taken in the presence of RW 3 Gautam Chand.
65/81 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore .
The petitioner submits that when the case was posted for filing of written statement itself the first respondent has filed such a memo stating that the suit was settled out of Court.
Necessary orders were obtained on 16.7.1988.
S. Javali and Raju Ramachandra for the Appellant.
2 was practising on his own having set up his separate office.
Of companyrse it was withdrawn without any written instruction from the defendant against whom he had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.
Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?
Anantaraju executed an agreement dated 9.8.1980 to sell his house property to Gautam Chand.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. A hast of questions of seminal significance, number only for the Advocate who has been suspended from practising his profession for 3 years on the charge of having withdrawn a suit as settled without the instructions from his client, but also for the members of the legal profession in general have arisen in this appeal Appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
the petitioner did number attend the Court on that day.
407 of 1985.
Whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a finding of guilt and a punishment PG NO 365 of this nature can be inflicted on him?
Ravinder Bhat, N. Ganapathy and Promod Swarup for the Respondents .
In order to persuade the Court, certain steps were taken through the said Gautam Chand.
Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
The petitioner submits that in fact, the respondents did number even inform the petitioner about the dates of hearing and when the petitioner asked the dates of hearing the respondents informed the petitioner stating that his presence is number required in the Court since the case was posted for filing of written statement and therefore .
581 of 1982.
