Submitted by Aadesh Agarkar
Prahlad Saran Gupta vs Bar Council Of India
1)The appellant had been practicing as an advocate at Ghaziabad and was enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. He was appearing for the decree holder in Execution Case No. 55 of 1974 M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand v. Shri Ram Contractor, in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad.
2) A complaint was received by the U.P. State Bar Council from one, Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant), a partner of the firm M/S. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, on August 1, 1979. In the said complaint the complainant has made the following allegations against the appellant :
a)The appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor and had realised Rs. 1,600 from him out of Which the sum of Rs. 1,500 was withheld by the appellant with himself and he did not pay it to the decree holder for a period of eight months .
b)The appellant, as counsel for the complainant's firm, had Filed Suit No. 10 of 1977 against Pradhan Shri Ramnath Singh in the court of Munsif (Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad) with utter carelessness with the result that their new counsel had to take back the plaint on April 26, 1978 to file it in the proper court
c)The appellant was indulging in money lending business at very high rate of interest and thus misconducting himself as an advocate and had advanced loan to one Sunderlal of Ghaziabad.
3)A copy of the said complaint was sent to the appellant by the State Bar Council for his explanation. The appellant submitted his reply to the complaint on December 12, 1979, wherein he denied all the allegations contained in the complaint.
4)The State Bar Council referred the case to one of its Disciplinary Committees but the said Committee could not complete the proceedings in the prescribed time of one year and, therefore, the proceedings were transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36b of the Act and thereafter the Disciplinary Committee dealt with the proceedings.
5)In support of the complaint, the complainant examined himself as a witness and produced the judgment debtor, Shri Ram, as well as Sunderlal and Balraj Gupta. The complainant also produced a number of documents. The appellant examined himself in defense.
Supreme court held-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. : This appeal, filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against the judgement of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disciplinary Committee') dated March 25, 1984 in B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 12 of 1982 whereby the Disciplinary Committee has found the appellant guilty of serious professional misconduct and has imposed the punishment of suspension from practice for a period of one year.
Submitted by Aadesh Agarkar