Decided on November 20,1997

Bangladesh Bar Council Appellant
Khawja Abdul Gani Respondents


LATIFUR RAHMAN,J. - (1.) This appeal by leave at the instance of the Bangladesh Bar Council is against the judgment and order dated 27-11-94 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in first Miscellaneous Case No. 80 of 1994 allowing the appeal in part and substituting an order of reprimand in place of an order made by Tribunal No. 1 constituted under Bangladesh Bar Council debarring respondent No. 1 Mr. Khawja Abdul Gani, Advocate from practicing the profession of law before court for a period of five years for gross professional and other misconduct.
(2.) Mrs. Rowshan Ara Zabin respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against respondent No. 1 Advocate before the Bangladesh Bar Council alleging, inter alia, that her husband late Mr. Neamatullah gifted her Taka 9 lacs deposited in FDR with Agrani Bank New Market Branch, Dhaka and 43 decimals of land at Mouza Senpara Parbata, Dhaka; that after death of her husband on 13-8-84 her husbands younger brother Obaidullah Humayun Kabir tried evict her with her two minor daughters from her husbands house at 6, Hare Street, Dhaka with view to grab the house; that at this stage respondent No. 1 Mr. Khawja Abdul Gani who is also cousin (Fufata Bhai) unsolicitingly came and offered to help her; that she went to Agrani Bank respondent No. 1 for withdrawing the money but bank authority asked them to obtain a decree establishing her right to the money following which TS 248 of 1985 of 1985 was filed through respondent No. 1 for declaration of her title in Money and the Senpara Parbata Land; that the said suit was decreed in 1986; that after the decree she withdrew Taka 11,00,000.00 in two instalments from Agrani Bank for the FDR for Taka 7,00,000.00; that out of this amount she deposited Taka 2,00,000.00 with that Agrani Bank in the name of her two minor daughters; that respondent No. 1 took from her Taka 2,38,000.00 as his fees in connection with the aforesaid suit; that respondent No. 1 induced her to pay Taka 1,00 lac to the imam of Nawab Bari Moslque on the undertaking that Imam Sahib would pay her Taka 20,000.00 per year as profit but no profit was ever paid and the principal was recovered after six years after much persuasion; that respondent No. 1 also induced her to pay to respondent No. 1 Taka 2,00,000.00 for inveestment in his jute business promising to pay good profit but did not return the principal not to speak of profit; that respondent No. 1 also induced her to buy a house at Central Road, Dhaka at a price of Taka 3,60,000.00 assuring that the house was a clean one, but the complainant had to face litigation over the same and the purchase proved to be a bad bargain; that respondent No. 1 then came to her wari residence and gave out that he would recover the valuable properties of her father-in-law at Mirpur and on that plea obtained the signature of the complainant on blank stamp papers and vokalatnama; that a few days after this a court peon came and served upon the complainant a summon; that the said court peon warned her to be careful about respondent No. 1, that after this respondent No. I came to her and upon hearing of service of summons by court peon demanded the same but the complainant refused at which respondent No. 1 got furious; that after this she went to Advocate Mr. SD Goswami who upon examining the summons told her that the son of respondent No. 1 has filed TS No. 126 of 1989 for partition on the plea that she had gifted him 14 decimals of Senpara Parbata land; that she did not make any such gift and accordingly filed TS 427 of 1989 for cancellation of the said forged Hiba Deed; that thereafter respondent No. 1 came to the complainant and expressing regrets obtained her signature on blank papers for filing sole-nama in TS 427 of 1989 relinquishing their claim in Senapara Parbata land upon the assurance that the solenama will be filed through Advocate Mr. Goswarni; that respondent No. 1, however, fraudulently through a new Advocate whom the complainant did never engage, filed a so-called Solenama admitting gift of the disputed land in favour of the son of respondent No. 1; that the complainant then filed an application for setting aside the solenama and the same was set aside on contest; that in TS 126 of 1989 respondent No. 1 some times filed hajira/petition on behalf of his son and some times for the complainant who are respectively plaintiff and defendant and their interests are conflicting and thereby respondent No. 1 committed gross professional misconduct; that the complainant can neither read nor write in Bengali and taking advantage of her dependence and helplessness respondent No. 1 induced her to hand overall her valuable deeds and documents to him and in flagrant violation of her trust, illegally converted some of those deeds and documents against her interest causing her immense loss and sufferings and accordingly, she prayed for appropriate punishment.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 contested the case by filing a written statement and contended, inter alia, that he acted bonafide in defending the interest of the complainant; that he never took undue advantage in any matter, rather did everything possible to protect and preserve her interest in all possible ways; that the case is false and fabricated. Before the tribunal, the complainant-respondent No. 2 examined two witnesses including herself in support of her case and exhibited various documents. Respondent No. 1 did not examine any witness.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.