Abdul Samad, Abdul Latif and Abdul Hamid determining the land companypensation of Rs.16,200/ only for the entire land.
That the respondent number 1 was also authorised in 1990 to appear and plead in all the reference cases filed against the appellant herein and also in all pending references and due to the aforesaid engagement, the appellant granted a special enhancement of a sum of Rs.600/ per month to the respondent number1 in his monthly retainership.
The companyplaint was entrusted to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan, but since the proceedings in the companyplaint companyld number be companycluded by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan within the stipulated period of Page 4 of 18 one year, the same was transferred to the Bar Council of India in the year 1995.
14 of 1982 was fixed for filing of the Written Statement in the Court on 07.12.1991.
It was also alleged that since an assignment deed was made out in favour of the sister of the respondent number1 on 30.1.1990, the respondent number 1 should number have accepted the brief and the very fact that he accepted the engagement without disclosing the material facts, proves and establishes the allegation of misconduct.
These persons got themselves substituted only on the basis of such assignment without which they had numberright to get themselves substituted in place of original owners.
Consequent upon the aforesaid representation made by the respondent number 1, the evidence of the appellant was closed on 10.11.1993 and the case was fixed for arguments.
After the aforesaid award was passed, the three land owners, namely, Abdul Samad and two others transferred the right to receive companypensation to Smt.
1.25 crore was announced by the Court.
Thereafter in the said reference proceedings, a date was fixed for leading evidence.
Also, in the said Reference, the date was fixed as 10.11.1993 for producing of the entire evidence but numberintimation regarding the aforesaid date was given by the Respondent to the appellant, as a result of which evidence of the Appellant was ordered to be closed by the learned Court.
14 of 1982 examined the witnesses in the Court, but the respondent neither cross examined those witnesses number did he inform the appellant about this.
14 of 1982 was decided on 02.12.1993 against the appellant and in that Judgment, an award of Rs.
Hence, in this manner, all the Respondents are closely related to each other or friends and in companynivance of Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.
They were companytesting parties in the Reference Court who were represented by respondent number2 and the respondent number3.
It is also disclosed from the records that the reference case number 14/1982 which is the basis and the subject matter of the companyplaint filed, was a land acquisition matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Page 6 of 18 Act pending in the Civil Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein the respondent number 1 was authorised to companyduct the case on behalf of the appellant as a companynsel.
2 and wife of Respondent No.
The misdemeanor of the respondent number 1 did number end only with the aforesaid position.
The authorisation was on 5.10.1990 and he started companyducting the said case from the said date.
Shanta Sharma on 20.9.1980 and 5.2.1982.
But the said appearance slip appears to have been manipulated later on by making over writing on the same.
Even the said fact was number brought to the numberice of the appellant by the respondent number1.
1 neither appeared in the Court on 07.12.1991, number filed Written Statement on behalf of the appellant.
Asha Gupta, the wife of respondent number3 and sister of respondent number1 and the aforesaid relatives of respondent number2 were parties in the reference proceedings as claimants.
Asha Gupta, wife of respondent number3 also got themselves substituted in the reference proceedings, which is Reference Case No.
Even the final order passed by the Court was number companyveyed to the appellant.
Page 2 of 18 The Land Acquisition Reference No.
The various companytentions of the companynsel appearing for the appellant were, however, refuted by the companynsel appearing for all the respondents, namely, respondents number 1, 2 and 3.
The appellant sought indulgence of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan for taking appropriate action against the respondents as envisaged under section 35 of the Act on the aforesaid grounds.
20 of 1993 in the Executing Court and another Execution Petition was filed by Mrs. Asha Gupta, wife of Respondent No.
Nothing of the nature was done and rather he paved the way for getting enhancement of companypensation for his sister.
On 7.12.1991, the written statement was required to be filed, but numbersuch written statement was prepared number was it filed and even respondent number 1 did number appear in the said Page 12 of 18 proceedings on that date, for which the defence of the appellant was struck off.
The Respondent No.1 intentionally acted against the interest of the appellant in defending the said Reference.
The appellant came to know about the passing of the aforesaid Page 3 of 18 order for the first time on 24.03.1994 when Mr. Manak Chand Surana Respondent No.
On 30.1.1990, Smt.
The defence taken was that there was some companyfusion with regard to the appearance slip on 19.1.1990 for the appearance slip which was filed in the aforesaid reference case on 19.1.1990 was meant for a different case.
These activities of the respondent number 1 were unbecoming of a professional lawyer and also clear cases of misconduct.
The Respondent also did number inform the appellant about the aforesaid order dated 10.11.1993.
The Respondent No.1 did number inform the appellant about the said order dated 07.12.1991 of the learned Court.
2 work in the same chamber in which the Respondent No.1 has been sitting and that Respondent No.
Even his retainership fee was enhanced by additional amount of Rs.
On the said date i.e. 10.11.1993, respondent number 1 informed the companyrt that numberevidence is to be produced on behalf of the appellant.
Shanta Sharma thereafter executed the assignment deed in favour of relatives of respondent number 2 , namely, Vimla Surana, Rajendra Surana, Jitendera Surana and Manak Surana in whose favour also the aforesaid assignment deed was made out.
Page 7 of 18 He also pointed out that on 19.1.1990, respondent number 1 appeared for the wife of the respondent number 3 who was his sister, she having been substituted as a claimant in the proceeding.
Page 11 of 18 Despite the aforesaid fact, the respondent number1 accepted the engagement given to him by the appellant as its companynsel to companytest the claim of the aforesaid companytesting claimants, one of which was his own sister.
That statement appears to have been made without any positive instructions of the appellant in that regard and without even informing the appellant about the said fact.
Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Reference No.
The Claimant in the said Land Acquisition Reference No.
3 is the brother in law of Respondent No.1.
The said order was also number companymunicated by the respondent number 1 to the appellant.
14/1982.
One Mrs. Shanta Sharma, thereafter purchased the right to seek companypensation in the said land on 20.9.1980 and 5.2.1982.
After substitution, Smt.
Even thereafter when the matter was listed for recording of evidence on 10.11.1993, the respondent number 1 informed the companyrt that numberevidence was being produced on behalf of the appellant.
The Respondent No.
It is shown from the records that the respondent number2 and the respondent number3 have been appearing for the claimants claiming higher companypensation before the Reference Court after the relatives of the respondent number 2 and the wife of respondent number3 got themselves substituted in place of original owners.
The respondent number 1 therefore number only appeared for the wife of the respondent number 3 in the same reference in which he also appeared for the appellant, who were companytesting the claims of the claimant including his own sister.
The records available also disclose that the aforesaid relatives of respondent number2 and Smt.
It is against this judgment of the Bar Council of India dated 24.03.2002, that the Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran has preferred an appeal under section 38 of the Act, upon which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
3 purchased the rights in the said property in order to earn profit out of the property in dispute which amounted to professional misconduct.
600/ per month.
Asha Gupta, wife of respondent number3, who also happens to be the sister of respondent number1.
Respondent number 1 appeared in the said reference case on 19.1.1990 for his sister wife of respondent number3 .
It was also companytended that Respondent No.
On 2.12.1993 the order was passed by the Reference Court enhancing the companypensation from Rs.16,200/ to Rs.1.25 crores.
At that stage the claimants were the three land owners.
In fact, the respondent number 1 was under an obligation to disclose his interest in the case and should have refused to accept the brief when offered to him.
They have relied upon the replies filed by the said respondents to the companyplaint filed and also on the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee while exonerating all the respondents.
2 filed Execution Petition No.
Shanta Sharma executed an assignment deed in favour of relatives of respondent number 2, namely, Vimla Surana, Rajendra Surana, Jitendra Surana and Manak Surana and Smt.
