On that day the appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated December 20, 1980.
The Bar Council of India issued numberices returnable on November 2, 1980.
The companyplainant further stated that even the documents and other papers handed over to the appellant and his associates for filing the suit were number returned.
11,400.74 for expenses etc.
On February 27, 1981, three witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant and he cross examined them.
The appellant again sent an application for adjournment which was rejected.
It is the case of the companyplainant that in the year 1975, the file relating to the case which was to be filed against m s Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd., companytaining original and valuable documents, was handed over to the Firm by the companyplainant.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that the appellant along with two other advocates was practising under the name and style of M s Singh and Company a firm of advocates and solicitors having their office at 2670, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
Mr. Arora in his letter dated March 31, 1977 further informed the bank that the entire suit paper book had been returned to Mr. B. Singh, Advocate on July 27, 1976 for removing the objection and thereafter the suit has number been re filed in the Registry of the High Court of Delhi.
This was so returned on 27.7.76.
The evidence was company cluded, arguments were heard and the order reserved.
As there was numberresponse from the appellant, the bank engaged the services of Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate, in order to find out as to what happened to the suit filed by the appellant and his associates on behalf of the bank.
On enquiry I came to know from the registers of the High Court that the suit had been filed on behalf of the companyplainant against Delhi Flooring P Ltd. on 15th December, 1975.
The Bar Council of India by its order dated October 24, 1981, removed his name from the rolls of advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi and the sanad granted to him has been withdrawn.
Mr. R.P. Arora, Advocate, appeared as a witness before the Bar Council of India.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.81 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, Delhi in C.I.T R. Case No.
It is also number disputed that an amount of Rs.11,475 was received by these advocates towards the filing of the suit and further that the companynected documents and papers were received by them.
11,475 was paid to the Firm on November 15, 1975, for filing the suit which included 1/3rd of the professional fee plus the miscellaneous charges.
6,12,164.10.
The Bar Council of India in the impugned order observed as under From a perusal of the order sheet of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi and also of the order sheet before us, it reveals that the respondents have throughout adopted the tactics of number companyperation purposely with a view to protract the proceedings unnecessarily.
Thereafter, the bank appears to have received numbercommunication from the said advocates despite repeated reminders oral and other ,vise and the bank was kept in the dark about the fate of the case entrusted to the appellant and his associates.
So far he has number again filed the said case in High Court.
Mr. D.S. Dalal, though served was number present on December 20, 1980 and as such ex parte proceedings were ordered.
Subsequently in his report dated March 31, 1977, Mr. P.Arora, Advocate gave the following information to the bank I have enquired from the Original section of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, that the file of the above stated case was returned to Shri B.Singh on 27.7.1976 as the said case was under objections.
Both the above quoted reports have been proved on the record of the Bar Council of India as evidence.
to the respondent advocates.
Singh and Company the firm at that time was represented by Mr. D.S. Dalal, Mr. B. Singh and Ms Singh, Advocates, who were the partners of the said firm and were companyducting cases for and on behalf of the firm.
He was also ordered to be proceeded ex parte.
The enquiries that were made by me in the High Court office was during March 1977 and till that date the suit had number been refiled by the respondents.
The register of the registree in respect of the period from 31.1.1976 is number available and I shall let you know the upto date information, when the said case was returned to M s. Singh Co. within a short period.
So far as Mr. B. Singh and Mr. D.S. Dalal are companycerned, the case against them was proved beyond reasonable doubt and their names were removed from the rolls of advocates of Bar Council of Delhi and the sanads granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn.
On that date the respondents were number present and as such fresh numberices were issued for December 20, 1980.
The State Bank of India lodged a companyplaint before the Bar Council of Delhi on September 4, 1978.
It was further claimed by the bank that the appellant and his associates had misappropriated the money paid to them for companyrt fee, miscellaneous expenses and one third of the professional fee.
It was alleged that the advocates were duly engaged by the Asaf Ali Road branch of the State Bank of India to file a recovery suit against M s Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd. for the recovery of Rs.
At that stage Mr. B. Singh, Advocate, one of the partners of the Firm, in his letter dated December 15, 1975 informed the bank that the suit had been filed on December 15, 1975 in the High Court of Delhi.
The relevant part of his evidence is as under I know the respondents in the case.
251 of 1982.
Singh, S.K.Gambhir and Davinder Singh for the Appellant.
The companyplainant, therefore, claimed that the appellant and his associates were guilty of serious professional misconduct as they failed to discharge their professional duties and responsibilities entrusted to them by the bank in its capacity as a client.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Bar Council of India companycluded as under After having gone through the evidence and the documents produced in the case carefully, we have companye to the companyclusion that the companyplainant had entrusted the suit to be filed against M s Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd. with the necessary papers and Rs.
It may be mentioned that the companyplainant had given up its case against Ms. V. Singh, Advocate and as such the Bar Council of India ultimately did number proceed against her.
P.Kapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents.
The above numbered case was filed by M s Singh Co. on 15.12.1975, but there were certain objections by the original branch and on 31.1.76 the said case file was returned to the registree by the original branch.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. D.S. Dalal was a practising advocate in Delhi.
An amount of Rs.
Mr.R.P. Arora in his letter dated March 2, 1977, informed the bank that the suit which had been filed on December 15, 1975 was returned by the original Branch on January 31, 1976 to the Registry of the High Court with objections.
28 of 1979.
The Bar Council of India on appreciation of the evidence before it came to the companyclusion that the charge against the appellant and Mr. B. Singh was proved beyond doubt.
Till December 19, 1975, the Firm did number inform the bank as to whether the suit was filed and if so what was the stage of the proceedings.
This was acknowledged by the Firm under a receipt which was placed on the record.
1 found from the records that the office has number registered the suit because of certain objections raised by the office.
The companyplainant was originally registered with the Bar Council of Delhi.
The ex parte order was set aside companyditionally permitting the appellant to participate in the proceedings and the case was adjourned to February 27, 1981.
I was instructed by the companyplainant in case to find out as to whether the respondents had filed the suit against the Delhi Flooring P Ltd. in the High Court of Delhi which was entrusted by the companyplainant with the respondents.
The bank wrote a letter dated December 05, 1975 to the Firm asking it to send a companyy of the plaint before December 8, 1975, for signatures and verification failing which the bank would be companypelled to withdraw the case from the firm.
This appeal under Section 30 of the Advocates Act is against the order of the Bar Council of India.
I also came to know that the entire suit filed had been returned to the respondents for companyplying with the objections and to refile the suit.
Accordingly I went to Delhi High Court and made enquiries to find out whether such a suit has been filed.
Notice to Mr. B. Singh, Advocate was returned with the postal endorsement refused.
Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and finally fixed for evidence on August 22, 1981.
On September 19, 1979, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case to the Bar Council of India on the ground that the case had been pending for more than one year.
Thereafter, the Firm submitted a bill for filing the recovery suit which included the professional fees and other miscellaneous charges.
The case was posted for January 23, 1981 for the evidence of the companyplainant.
