During the pendency of the enquiry against the appellant, he entered into a partnership with his younger brother wherein the mutual arrangement arrived at between the two partners was that the appellant would remain a sleeping partner and his younger brother would actively and wholly look after the business.
On 20.6.1998, the State Bar Council having held the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, directed his license to practice to be suspended for a period of one year under clause c of sub section 3 of section 35 of the Act.
According to the State Bar Council, the appellant, though a practising advocate, applied for the dealership and subsequently secured a letter of intent in his favour.
On enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found the charge proved.
2004 2 SCR 1122 The following Order of the Court was delivered These are two appeals under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council on a companyplaint made by the respondent accusing the appellant of having taken dealership of a retail outlet of petroleum products.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Bar Council, the appellant as well as the companyplainant preferred two appeals while the appellant sought for the order of the State Bar Council being set aside, the companyplainant sought for enhancement of punishment.
The companyplaint was made after about two years of the retail outlet having remained in operation.
Both the appeals have been disposed of by a companymon order dated 25.8.1998.
The appellant is an advocate duly enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 herein after referred to as the Act for short .
Thereafter, the petrol pump was also started.
