The said cheque being presented bounced.
It is also to be numbered that against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, this Court as early as on 8.11.1939 issued numberice and suspended the order of the Bar Council of India.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties, it is found that all that the companyplainant alleged was to the effect that the appellant being an Advocate of the other side arid after settling the civil dispute between the parties by way of companypromise had persuaded the companyplainant to part with an amount of Rs.3,000/ by way of a hand loan.
In the suit, the parties negotiated for companypromise.
After hearing the parties and recording the evidence offered by them, the State Bar Council came to the companyclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and hence he was ordered to be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of two years from the date of receipt of the order.
holding him guilty of professional misconduct and ordering his suspension from practice for a period of two years.
Despite repeated requests of the companyplainant respondent, the appellant did number refund the said amount.
It is the further case of the respondent that accordingly he parted with Rs.3,000/ against a post dated cheque dated 8.3.1984 given by the appellant to him.
The post dated cheque given by him to the companyplainant bounced and the appellant did number repay the amount even thereafter despite repeated request.
173 of 1983 on the file of Assistant Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of partnership.
It is the case of the companyplainant respondent before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh that after the said companypromise was entered into, the appellant Advocate for the other side called him for a cup of tea in the canteen and persuaded him to give him a hand loan of Rs.3,000/ as he was in urgent heed for providing furniture for the School run by his wife.
The appellant companytested the proceedings.
A few facts leading to this appeal deserve to be numbered.
On the day of companypromise, the companyplainant however was paid an amount of Rs.l2,000/ cash though he had to receive R3.3,000/ more meaning Rs.l5,000/ .
A companyplaint was filed before the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
Hence, according to him, the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct.
As per the terms of agreement dated 2.7.1984 a companypromise memo was filed in the Court.
B.Majmudar.
Appellants appeal before the Bar Council of India failed as its Disciplinary Committee was number inclined to take a companytrary view.
One G.Rami Reddy had filed a suit against the respondent complainant, G. Lingappa and another being S.No.
In the suit, the appellant represented the opponent of the present respondent companyplainant.
J. The appellant who is a practising Advocate has brought in challenge the order passed by the Bar Council of India under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961.
