9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Professional misconduct allegations against the appellant. 2. Enrolment of the appellant as an Advocate. 3. Evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct. 4. Findings and orders of the Disciplinary Committees. 5. Submission of false declaration during the enrolment process. 6. Evidence presented by witnesses regarding the appellant's business activities. 7. Undertaking filed by the appellant. 8. Report submitted by the Sub-Judge. 9. Evaluation of the punishment imposed on the appellant. Analysis: 1. The appellant appealed against the order removing their name from the State's Roll of Advocates due to professional misconduct allegations. The Disciplinary Committees found the appellant guilty of carrying on business activities even after enrolment as an Advocate, leading to the removal order upheld by the Bar Council of India. 2. During the enrolment process, the appellant declared no engagement in any trade or business, which was later found to be false. The Disciplinary Committee noted that the appellant suppressed material facts, leading to questions about the validity of the enrolment itself. 3. Witnesses provided evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, including the appellant's involvement in running a photocopier center, a PCO/STD booth, and a private concern even after becoming an Advocate. The appellant's defense claiming a transfer of business responsibilities to family members was not accepted by the Disciplinary Committees. 4. Both Disciplinary Committees concurred that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct based on the evidence presented, including oral and documentary proof. The punishment of debarring the appellant from practice was deemed appropriate, considering the severity of the misconduct. 5. An undertaking was filed by the appellant before the Court, stating non-engagement in any business activities apart from legal practice. However, subsequent reports and evidence contradicted this undertaking, leading to further scrutiny by the Court and the Sub-Judge. 6. The report submitted by the Sub-Judge supported the findings of the Disciplinary Committees, reinforcing the evidence of the appellant's continued involvement in business activities despite the undertaking filed in Court. 7. The Court upheld the finding of professional misconduct against the appellant, supported by substantial evidence. However, considering the circumstances and the appellant's handicap, the Court modified the punishment to debar the appellant from practice until the end of December 2006, deeming the original lifetime debarment too harsh. 8. The judgment concluded that while the punishment was modified, the finding of misconduct and the overall order remained unchanged. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.
|
