Harishchandra Tiwari Vs.Baiju AIR 2002 SWC 547.


1)Harishchandra - Appellant
2) Baiju- Respondent


Fact -

                Appellant was the enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of state of U.P in May,1982, and has been practicing since then. Appellant was engaged by Baiju respondent, in a land acquisition case in which the respondent was claimant for compensation.  Compensation of RS. 8118 /-  for acquisition of Land of the said Baiju. Same was deposited by the state in the court. The appellant applied for releasing the amount and as per the Courts order withdrew the amount on 2 September 1987 but he did not return it to the client to whom it was due nor did he informed client about the receipt of the amount.
Long thereafter, when the client got the knowledge of it and after failing the to get amount written by the Advocate, a complainant was lodged by him with the bar council of state for initiating suitable disciplinary action against Appellant
               On 12 June 1988, appellant filed a reply to the said complaint accepting the Representation of the respondent by him and withdrawing of money, but adopted a defence that he had returned the amount to the client after deducting his fees and expenses. In addition to this Appellant on 3 August 1988 filed an affidavit before state bar council bar council in which a compromise between the appellant and respondent had been arrived was stated. State bar council disciplinary committee was checked the affidavit with the respondent. The respondent not only denied the contents but also denied having received any amount from the appellant Advocate.
             Under section 36-B the Act of proceedings stood transferred to the bar council of India. The disciplinary committee conducted enquiry and came to the conclusion that the affidavit dated 3 August, 1988. was forged one and that application was fabricated.  On this findings the committee imposed a punishment of suspending the Advocate from practice for a period of 3 years.
Against this order that an appeal is made before the Honorable court under Section 38 of advocate Act ,1961.

Issue -

           What should be the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the delinquent advocate ? 

Judgement -

          The Supreme Court disposed The Appeal and imposed the punishment of removal of the name of appellant from the roll of the advocate.

0 comments:

Post a comment

See Also..