9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant appeared in court on behalf of the complainant and later appointed other advocates without her knowledge. 2. Whether the appointed advocates colluded with the appellant to improperly contest the complainant's case. 3. Whether the appellant colluded with the defendant in the case. 4. Whether the appellant committed any act of professional misconduct. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Appearance and Appointment of Advocates: The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India framed the issue of whether the appellant appeared in court on behalf of the complainant and later appointed advocates Shri Ladiwala and Shri Munshi without her knowledge. The complainant alleged that she engaged the appellant in September 1988, signed a Vakalatnama, and that the appellant collected sums of Rs. 500, Rs. 1500, and Rs. 1500 towards the decretal amount but did not pay her. The Committee accepted the complainant's statement, despite her affidavit dated 18.2.1987, which stated that the appellant was acting as a mediator and was not her advocate at the time. The Supreme Court found that the complainant's affidavit contradicted her allegations and that the Committee's dismissal of this affidavit was incorrect. The Court emphasized that the complainant understood and could speak English to some extent, contradicting her claim that the affidavit was not explained to her. 2. Conduct of Appointed Advocates: The Committee examined whether advocates Shri Ladiwala and Shri Munshi, appointed by the appellant, did not properly contest the complainant's case in collusion with the appellant. The Committee found no evidence of collusion as the advocates were not before the Committee. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant did not object to the advocates' appearance in court, nor did she allege misconduct against them in the City Civil Court or appeal/revision against the order setting aside the ex-parte decree. The complainant's subsequent appointment of Shri Ladiwala in the Bombay High Court further weakened her allegations. 3. Collusion with the Defendant: The issue of whether the appellant colluded with the defendant, Mrs. D'Souza, was scrutinized. The complainant alleged that the appellant, in collusion with the advocates, wrongfully agreed to set aside the ex-parte decree. The Supreme Court found no foundation for this allegation, noting that the complainant did not challenge the order setting aside the decree or allege misconduct against her counsel at the time. The Court pointed out that the complainant's actions, such as appointing Shri Ladiwala in the High Court, contradicted her claims of collusion. 4. Professional Misconduct: The Committee concluded that the appellant committed professional misconduct based on the findings of issues 1 and 3. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that allegations of misconduct require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the complainant's evidence shaky and unacceptable, noting that the Committee did not properly appreciate the material on record. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not establish the appellant's misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bar Council of India's order holding the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Court found that the evidence did not support the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Disciplinary Committee's findings resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal and Special Leave Petition were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
