The Bar Council therefore affirmed the finding on the third charge, but modified the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh by directing the suspension of the appellant for a total period of three months and ordering him to pay Rs.
1000/ by way of companyts to the companyplainant.
Instead of dealing with the three substantial issues one by one, the Disciplinary Committee examined them all together even though they raised different questions of fact.
The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was moved for disciplinary action against appellant Ram Bharosey Agarwal for the three matters mentioned above.
The first charge against the appellant was that he was guilty of professional misconduct in accepting a brief on b half of Jai Narains father.
100/ as companyts to the companyplainant.
Appellant Ram Bharosey Agarwal was practising as an advocate in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh He was engaged by respondent Har Swarup Maheshwari, on behalf of his daughter Smt.
The Disciplinary Committee framed four issues, three of which related to the alleged misconduct in regard to the three matters mentioned above, while the fourth issue was meant to decide whether the appellant was guilty of Professional misconduct.
Jai Narain filed an application for reconsideration of the order of maintenance, and examined three witnesses.
Munni Devi, to pursue her application against her husband Jai Narain under Section 468 Gr.
When the order was put into execution, Har Swarup Maheshwari engaged another lawyer to prosecute the execution application.
Appellant, Ram Bharosey Agarwal was engaged by the accused in those proceedings.
In those proceedings the property of Jai Narain was attached.
The third allegation was that the appellant wrote a letter dated August 14, 1967 to Jagdish Narain Agarwal, an advocate of the Allahabad High Court, to have an appeal which had gone upto the Allahabad High Court dismissed even though there were numbersuch instructions from his client and the action was detrimental to the interest of the client.
Munni Devis father Har Swarup Maheshwari instituted a case for defamation against those three witnesses and Jai Narain.
The second allegation against the appellant therefore was that he was guilty of misconduct in appearing on behalf of the accused in the defamation case.
All the same, it reached the companyclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct, suspended him from practice for a period of two years, and awarded Rs.
The Council held by its order dated December 10, 1974 that he was number guilty of professional misconduct in respect of the first two matters, but that there was numberreason for interfering with the finding of fact of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in the third matter regarding the writing of the aforesaid letter dated August 14, 1967, to Jagdish Nirain Agarwal, Advocate, for having the appeal dismissed in the High Court.
His father claimed that the attached property belonged to him, and his application to that effect was alleged to have been filed by the appellant.
Munni Devi on September 5, 1963, and a maintenance allowance was granted to her.
What was worse, the Disciplinary Committee did number give reasons in support of its finding on any of the issues.
An appeal was taken by Ram Bharosey Agarwal to the Bar Council of India.
D. Alexander and he was thereby prevented from companyparing the signature on the disputed letter dated August 14, 1967 which was alleged to be the principal evidence against the appellant and formed the basin of the allegation of misconduct against him.
The case was decided in favour of Smt.
P.O. in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr.
