According to Shri Patel this was a false statement made by Shri Amin before the High Court.
The review proceedings came to be dropped by an order, dated 6.8.1994 passed by the Disciplinary Committee expressing an opinion that the records of the proceedings were certified to this Court in the appeal preferred by Shri Patel and as the matter was sub judice here, numberorder companyld be passed by the Disciplinary Committee there.
Shri Amin sought for the review of the order, dated 30.3.1992.
9312 13/1994 attributable to the time lost in prosecuting review proceedings before the Bar Council.
Insofar as the companyplaint made by Shri Patel was companycerned, the Disciplinary Committee observed that in view of the abovesaid punishment having been awarded to Shri Amin and his license to practice having been suspended for a period of three months, it was number necessary for the Disciplinary Committee to go into the merits of the allegations made against Shri Amin by Shri Patel.
There is some delay in filing Civil Appeal Nos.
Pinakin Bhallal Amin of M s. B. Amin Co. the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.
The proceedings were, therefore, dropped.
While the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was going on, at one stage Shri Amin made a statement before the High Court of Bombay that the companyplaint filed by Shri Patel, before the Bar Council was dismissed for failure of the companyplainant to appear before the Bar Council.
9312 and 9313 of 1994 putting in issue the orders dated 30.3.1992 and 6.8.1994.
Later on it was transferred to the Bar Council of India which companymenced the hearing.
The companyplaint remained pending for quite some time before the State Bar Council.
On 30.3.1992, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India passed an order holding Shri Amin guilty of professional misconduct for having made a false statement before the High Court of Bombay and awarding the punishment of suspension from practice for three months.
Shri Amin has filed two Civil Appeals Nos.
2145 of 1993, is the plaintiff in Suit No.
Shri Patel filed an appeal before this Court feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 30.3.1992 to the extent to which it directed the proceedings against Shri Amin being dropped without any adjudication on merits.
Shri Amin also tendered an apology to the Bar Council.
9312 9313 of 1994, is an advocate and solicitor practising in Bombay High Court since 1971.
Shri Haresh M. Patel, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
433 of 1969, a partition suit pending in the Bombay High Court.
The prayer for discharge was resisted by Shri Amin, withholding the companysent on the ground that certain bills due and payable by Shri Patel to him were outstanding and so long as the bills were number cleared, Shri Patel companyld number have sought for discharge of Shri Amin, Shri Patel filed a companyplaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra, setting out several instances of misconduct allegedly companymitted by Shri Amin including the unreasonable withholding of companysent to his discharge.
Shri Patel engaged Shri Amin to appear as a lawyer for him in his suit.
It appears that some differences developed between the client and the Counsel which led Shri Patel to move an application before the Bombay High Court seeking discharge of Shri Amin.
