The State Bar Council held that these two charges have number been substantiated and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has number gone into them.
It further observed that it was unfortunate that the appellant an Agavane did number advise Smt.
Potdar.
His case is that they represented that the priest was insisting upon an affidavit as regards their divorce as a precaution before performing their marriage and therefore they wanted to swear an affidavit to that effect.
Appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 from the order dated the 23rd April, 1976 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No, 11 of 1975.
As to the incident of January 7, 1974, the appellant pleads that the affidavit sworn by Potdar and Smt.
Dhavale to part with Rs.
The evidence with regard to the second charge, namely, that the appellant and Agavane were guilty of number giving proper legal advice to Smt.
It observed that if the gift deed companyld number be executed because Smt.
The charge is that she had met all the lawyers except these two and all of them advised her to give the market value of the land intended to be gifted and pay ad valorem stamp duty thereon indicating the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges payable, but these two lawyers told her that she should number unnecessarily spend a large A amount over the stamp duty and registration charges and they would instead have the work done within an amount of Rs.
Dhavale was prepared on their instructions as they represented that they had divorced their respective spouses and expressed that they wanted to marry each other on that very day and leave Poona.
According to them, the appellant and agavane sometimes impersonated as other advocates for whom the briefs were meant and at times they directly approached the clients and adopted questionable methods charging exorbitant fees.
Mangala Ramesh Ghorpade.
Potdar would start living with a stranger as husband and wife and also adopt a new surname unless there was a marriage.
Dhavale that the affidavit sworn by them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the certificate of marriage issued by him would make them legally married according to Hindu rites although numbermarriage was ever performed.
100 towards their professional fee on the faith of an assurance that the affidavit sworn by them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poona to the effect that they had divorced their respective spouses and had got married at Poona on January 7, 1974 as per Hindu rites would be sufficient proof of their marriage.
She however states that she was living with Potdar as she was under the belief that she had been married to him.
720 of 1976.
The accusation is that the appellant and Agavane induced Potdar and Smt.
The appellant virtually pleads that the case against him is a frame up.
As regards the second charge, the Disciplinary Committee held them to be guilty of number giving proper legal advice to their client Smt.
Sonubai Girju Valekar of Loni Bhapkar, Tehsil Baramati, District Poona had made a gift of her lands to her grand daughter Smt.
The case against the appellant and Agavane rests upon professional misconduct and number any other companyduct.
The oral evidence adduced by the companyplainant was number sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the recitals companypled with the other circumstances appearing.
Both of them were educated persons and they had the power to understand what they were doing and therefore they being the executants of the affidavit must be held bound by the recitals companytained therein.
The charges levelled against the appellant and Agavane are serious enough and if true in a case like the present, the punishment has to be deterrent, but the question still remains whether the charges have been proved.
It further appears that the appellant and Agvane were two junior lawyers who preferred number to become members of the association, but started their practice sitting under a tree in the Court precincts.
Sonubai had made a gift of her lands to her grand daughter Smt.
There is numberhing unprofessional for an advocate to draft an affidavit on the instructions of his client.
Incidentally, Smt.
The testimony of Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL Appeal No.
The gravamen of the charge against the appellant and Agavane relates to the giving of improper legal advice on two specific companynts, namely 1 On January 7, 1974 the appellant and Agavane are alleged to have got the remarriage of a companyple S.B. Potdar and Smt.
Presumably, the gentlemen of the bar who were members of the association found that their activities a were prejudicial to their interests because they directly got in touch with the clients and did the same kind of work with impunity by adopting similar questionable methods.
This Court by its order dated September 24, 1976 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the suspension of order.
It is rather improbable that a Hindu lady like Smt.
Dhavale and also attested by one Gangadhar Laxman Jamkhedkar who claimed to have acted as the priest and said to have solemnised the marriage.
Sonubai had numbersufficient funds to bear the companyt of stamp duty and registration charges payable, the affidavit was numbersubstitute for that as it would hardly be evidence of a gift.
The Disciplinary Committee has recorded a finding that it did number companysider that the companyduct of the appellant and Agavane amounted to cheating their clients, and that both were guilty of giving improper legal advice, but these were number cases of a bona fide mistake of a lawyer.
The document was signed by both Potdar and Smt.
The proceedings stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under s. 36B of the Act.
The testimony of smt.
When companyfronted with the portion marked as AA We have today married at Poona as per Hindu rites, she asserted that she and Potdar had number been married according to Hindu rites at Poona on January 7, 1974 or at any time thereafter.
The companyplainants have examined four advocates to substantiate the charge against the appellant and Agavane viz.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. The disciplinary proceedings out of which this appeal under s. 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 Act for short has arisen were initiated on a companyplaint made by a group of 12 advocates practising in the two companyrts of Sub Divisional Magistrates in the Collectorate of Poona alleging various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant P.D. Khandekar and one A.N. Agavane.
V. Tambekar for the Respondent.
The Complainants alleged various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant and Agavane.
It is quite possible that this old illiterate lady aged about 90 years came to the Sub Divisional Magistrates Court with the purpose of executing a gift deed in favour of her grand daughter Smt.
The State Bar Council referred to four specific charges relating to them, two of impersonation as A.D. Ghospurkar and N.L. Thatte and depriving these gentlemen of the briefs meant for them.
J. Francis for the Appellant.
Leelawati Dhavale performed although their divorce was number legal.
2 On February 22, 1374 the appellant and Agavane drew up an affidavit companytaining a recital that Smt.
A.D. Ghospurkar, N.L. Thatte, T.S. Pariyani and A. Mandake.
With respect to the first charge, it held that they had misled their clients Potdar and Smt.
N. Ganpule and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Respondent No.
First as to the facts.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by its order dated April 23, 1976 held both the appellant and A.N. Agavane guilty of professional misconduct and directed that the appellant be suspended for a period of four months from June 1, 1976 and Agavane for a period of two months therefrom.
Sonubai is even less companyvincing.
50 which was finally settled at Rs.45.
Regarding the incident of February 22, 1974, there was a companyplete denial that the appellant drew up an affidavit companytaining a recital that Smt.
Both the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council however found the appellant and Agavane to be guilty of giving improper legal advice and held the charge of professional misconduct proved, but having regard to the fact that they were junior members of the bar, the Disciplinary Committee has taken a lenient view and passed the sentence indicated above.
In dealing with the question of punishment to be imposed on them, the Disciplinary Committee observes We take into companysideration the age of the advocates the families they have to maintain, the environments in which they practise and the standard which is maintained in such on environment is number very high as the Bar Association Rules certify toutism and provide for toutism which companyld be unthinkable anywhere else.
