9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling of O.S. No. 237/1986, the respondent as a lawyer, had also filed a suit on behalf of Siddaramma Shetty before the Civil Judge. That suit was a partition suit and was numbered as O.S. No. 119/1986. The property involved in the partition suit was the same property which became subject matter of attachment in O.S. No. 237/1986. In the partition suit (O.S. No. 119/1986), admittedly, the appellant was not a party. In that suit Siddaramma Shetty had obtained an injunction against the defendants therein with regard to the property situate at Nehru Road, subject matter of attachment in O.S. No. 237/1986. 2. Despite the compromise entered into on 16.1.1987 in O.S. No. 237/1986, Siddaramma Shetty did not pay the decretal amount. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant filed an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. Vide order dated 25.3.1996, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the State Bar Council as also the Bar Council of India and the records. 5. On the basis of the material placed before the State Bar Council, the Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion, after framing issues and recording of evidence, that appellant had failed to prove commission of any misconduct by the respondent. It was noticed that at the most the allegations leveled against the respondent could amount to a neglig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 105/1990 had not been signed and verified by the appellant. The submission is without any basis. The documentary evidence belies the submission. According to the appellant, some conversation had taken place in the office of the respondent when the appellant along with his friend Shri Nagaraja and Shri Jayanna had gone to make enquiries about the Miscellaneous Application No. 105/1990 when the respondent admitted filing of the miscellaneous application without instructions using signatures obtained on blank papers. In the complaint it was stated that the conversation was recorded on a tape and the same will be produced, but none was in fact produced. The withholding of the tape recorded conversation is a serious lacuna. The Bar Counci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
