2014 (4) TMI 979 - SC - Indian Laws

Suspension from practice - professional mis-conduct - Cross appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Held that - In the cross-appeal preferred by the advocate appellant it is stated that being aggrieved by the order dated April 22 2002 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh the cross-appeal is being preferred by the respondent therein (advocate appellant herein). As a matter of law Section 37 of the 1961 Act does not contemplate cross-appeal. The Code of Civil Procedure has not been made applicable as it is to the proceedings before the disciplinary committee. Section 42 of the 1961 Act makes applicable provisions of the Code in respect of matters contained therein while providing that the disciplinary committee of a Bar Council shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court. The matters contained in Section 42 do not refer to the appeals. Thus the provisions contained in Order 41 of the Code including Rule 22 thereof have no applicability to the proceedings before a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council has considered the entire material including the evidence of the complainant and the advocate appellant and arrived at the finding that the advocate appellant was guilty of professional mis-conduct for having attested the sale deed dated November 3 1999 containing a statement that the shop on the western side of the saleable property in occupation of the complainant has already been transferred to the advocate appellant by giving him ownership right. The attestation of the sale deed containing the above statement which was apparently false to the knowledge of advocate appellant amounted to professional mis- conduct. The vendor-Jitender Singh Bakna and his father Sardar Desh Singh Bakna were the clients of the advocate appellant. As a matter of fact the advocate appellant had filed a suit on behalf of the vendor against the complainant seeking his eviction from the premises for which the statement was made in the sale deed dated November 3 1999 that the said premises in occupation of the complainant has been transferred by the vendor to the advocate appellant. From the material on record the professional mis-conduct of the advocate appellant is clearly established and the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh cannot be said to have committed any error in holding him guilty of the professional mis-conduct. Having held that the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council awarded him punishment of reprimand. Against the inadequate punishment awarded to the advocate appellant for the proved professional mis-conduct the complainant preferred appeal. In that appeal notice was issued to the advocate appellant and in response thereto he did appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on October 30 2004 and was fully heard. The requirement of the proviso appended to Section 37(2) of the 1961 is thus fully met. Advocate appellant is suspended from practice for a period of three months effective from today the above objectives would be met - Decided partly in favour of assessee.