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.
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.
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.
Gautam Chand RW 3 and Haradara PW 1 were friends.
The application Misc.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It is the companymon case of parties that Gautam Chand introduced the companyplainant Haradara to the appellant and his companyleague Advocate respondent No.
He used to get only companymission.
Gautam Chand had business dealings with the plaintiff Haradara and the Defendant Anantaraju.
The appellant caused the issue of numberice dated 1.6,1981 Ex.
30,000 and odd, from the defendant Anantaraju on the basis of the aforesaid cheques.
Whether the companyplainant was the person who entrusted the brief to the appellant and whether the brief was entrusted by the companyplainant to the appellant?
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 Chapter V entitled companyduct of Advocates, on receipt of 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.
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.
It was instituted on 30.6.1981.
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.
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.
On the same date, a numberice was separately issued on behalf oF the companyplainant Haradara addressed to Anantaraju demanding certain amounts due on the three self bearer cheques aggregating Rs.
2 herein who was attached to his Office and was practising along with him at his office at the material time.
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.
Consistently, the appellant had reasons to believe the information of settlement of dispute companyveyed by the three parties together on 9.12.1981.
The defence of the appellant being that the suit was withdrawn under the oral instructions of the companyplainant in the presence of RW 3 Gautam Chand and RW 4 Anantharaju and inasmuch as RWs 3 and 4 supported the version of the appellant on oath, the matter was required to be examined in this background.
30,000 and odd through Gautam Chand and that he did number know the defendant intimately or closely.
R/15 on behalf of Gautam Chand addressed to the seller Anantaraju calling upon him to execute the sale dead.
There was numberconflict of interests as between Gautam Chand and Haradara.
The version of the appellant may number be unfolded One Gautam Chand R. W. 3 has been a longstanding client of the appellant.
Assuming that the evidence of the appellant companyroborated by RWs 3 and 4 in regard to the presence of the companyplainant was number companysidered acceptable, the question would yet arise as to whether the withdrawal on the part of the appellant as per the oral instructions of RW 3 Gautam Chand who had taken the companyplainant to the appellant for instituting the suit, would amount to professional misconduct.
Thus Misc.
The papers were delivered to respondent No.
The Court initially declined to grant an order of attachment.
R 1A at page 14 Additional Documents .
Anantaraju was their companymon adversary.
The appellant companyveyed information of the settlement of dispute by his numbere made on the docket.
2 acting on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara.
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.
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.
The publication of this numberice was relied upon subsequently on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara by his advocate respondent No.
581 of 1982.
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, the petitioner did number attend the Court on that day.
30,098 issued by Anantaraju in companyrse of their mutual transactions.
It was this suit which was withdrawn by the appellant.
2 Ashok Advocate by Gautam Chand PW 3 .
It was also admitted by the companyplainant that he knew the defendant against whom he had filed the suit for recovery of Rs.
This numberice was issued by the Advocate respondent No.
1965 of 1981 was instituted on behalf of the companyplainant Haradara claiming on amount of Rs.
Ashok in seeking an order of attachment.
Disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him.
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 the 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.
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 Court passed order dated 10.12.1981 dismissing the suit, O.S. No.
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 suit being O.S. No.
On the docket of the brief pertaining to the suit, the appellant made an endorsement giving instructions to withdraw the suit as settled.
2 Ashok Advocate.
The Court accepted his submissions and passed the order of attachment.
The object of the suit was achieved.
The appellant was already handling a case on behalf of RW 3 Gautam Chand against RW 4 Anantharaju.
Necessary orders were obtained on 16.7.1988.
In order to persuade the Court, certain steps were taken through the said Gautan Chand.
The suit was a suit for recovery of Rs.
Of companyrse it was withdrawn without any written instructions from the companyplainant.
It was in these circumstances that Gautam Chand RW 3 approached the appellant for legal advice.
He did number also immediately apply for the restoration of suit.
O.S. 1965/81 on the file of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore.
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.
The property was in fact the subject of an agreement to sell between Anantaraju and Gautam Chand RW 3 .
Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?
2 was practising on his own having set up his separate office.
An interlocutory application was moved on behalf of Haradara by respondent No.
30,098 Suit No.
The plaintiff Haradara has number objected to it at any time.
Gautam Chand instructed the appellants and his companyleague respondent No.
16 of 1982 Application for restoration of suit is pending in Civil Court.
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.
At the point of time when the suit was withdrawn, respondent No.
In the order under appeal the Disciplinary Committee has addressed itself to three questions viz.
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.
Subsequently the defendant Anantaraju executed the sale deed dated 27th Nov., 1981 in favour of Gautam Chand.
An application for restoration was filed on the last date of limitation on 11.1.1982.
1965 of 1981.
Gautam Chand was desirous of stops to induce Anantaraju to execute the sale deed in his favour.
Whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a finding of guilt and a punishment of this nature can be inflicted on him?
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.
He drew a diagram of the location of residence of the respondent No.
After satisfying himself, respondent No.
Anantaraju, however, did number execute the sale deed within the stipulated period and during the extended period.
The petitioner submits that the matter in dispute in the suit was number settled at all and the first respondent 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 10 days since the date of the disposal of the suit.
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.
The sale deed was in fact executed during the subsistence of the order of attachment companycerning the same property.
Besides, Anantaraju executed an agreement dated 9.8.1980 to sell his house property to Gautam Chand.
Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
It was later sought to be revived by application Misc.
65/81 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore .
30,098 with Court companyts and current interest in Case No.
2 as his Advocate seeking the attachment before judgment of the immovable property belonging to the defendant Anantaraju.
In addition, the companyplainant PW 1 Haradara himself has admitted in his evidence that it was Gautam Chand who had introduced him to the appellant, and that he was in fact taken to the office of the appellant for filing the said suit, by Gautam Chand.
The Petitioner submits that the said suit was filed by the first respondent who was then a Junior of the Second respondent.
16 of 1982 was later allowed to be dismissed for default on 30.7.1982.
He received earnest money in the sum of rupees 35,000 from Gautam Chand.
