1624 of 1991 was filed by Sri Gutta Nagabhushanam, hereinafter referred to the de facto companyplainant, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru through the delinquent advocate.
Delinquent was engaged as the companynsel for the de facto companyplainant in the execution proceedings as well.
39 of 1997 dated 28th March, 1999 by which the Bar Council of India has set aside the order passed by the State Council removing the name of Kurapati Satyanarayana, hereinafter referred to the Delinquent, from the roll of the State Bar Council as he was found guilty of grave professional misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an advocate.
The Committee directed that the said two drafts be forwarded to the companyplainant without prejudice to his any other right, if any.
11,000/ to the companyplainant, the same was number paid.
808327 of Rs.
The memo filed by D.H.R. along with original receipt issued by Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate, Dt.
2.4.1996 and the photostat companyy of calculation memo dt.
The story put forth that he paid a sum of Rs.
Sri K. Satyanarayana absent perused the entire record.
On 18th October, 1996 the de facto companyplainant filed a companyplaint with the Additional District Munsif, Eluru.
The Delinquent preferred an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
On the said companyplaint Additional District Munsif, Eluru passed the following orders Decree Holder present.
3,600/ and a demand draft No.
14,600/ on various dates in the execution proceedings but did number make payment of the same to the de facto companyplainant.
The State Disciplinary Committee after examining the witnesses produced by the companyplainant came to the companyclusion that the Delinquent had received a total sum of Rs.
and along with this companyplaint and companynter be submitted to the Secretary, Bar Council of A.P. in High Court premises, through the Honble District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for taking necessary action with companyering letter, D. Hr.
The Delinquent received a total sum of Rs.
11,000/ on 4th September, 1996 was number accepted because the Delinquent failed to produce any receipt given by the companyplainant evidencing the payment of the said amount to the companyplainant.
0142169 dated 17th October, 1997 for Rs.
It was numbered that only on 19th August, 1997 a demand draft No.
is informed in open Court.
Assertion of the Delinquent that he had informed the companyplainant through a post card about the receipt of the decretal amount was number accepted.
The companyplaint filed by the de facto companyplainant along with the reply filed by the Delinquent and the companynected documents were forwarded to the Bar Council of the Andhra Pradesh in the High Court premises for appropriate action.
J U D G M E N T Bhan, J. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, for short the State Bar Council, has filed this appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No.
2,900/ drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad in favour of the companyplainant were sent.
The Delinquent in spite of the service of numberice did number choose to file a companynter.
14,600/ belonging and payable to the de facto companyplainant on different dates and retained the same with him.
It was specifically mentioned that the payment of the said two amounts would number obliterate the misconduct of the Delinquent.
112 of 1995 was instituted for realisation of the decretal amount.
The said suit having been decreed, Execution Petition No.
The State Bar Council referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee.
C 1 dated 24th April, 1996 given in writing by the Delinquent to pay a sum of Rs.
16.8.1996 prepared by Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate, which is number signed by D.Hr.
The State Bar Council took numberice of the companyplaint filed and issued a numberice to the Delinquent.
S. No.
That in spite of an undertaking Ex.
