- (1.) The appellant who is an advocate has preferred this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against the order dated 28/3/1992 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar council of India in BCI/tr Case No. 100 of 1990 suspending the appellant on the roll of the Bar council of Maharashtra and Goa for a period of two years with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 as costs to the complainant. Respondent 1 herein, in exercise of its powers under Section 35 (3 (c) read with Section 36 as well as Section 43 (B) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The said appellant has b also filed the special leave petition referred to above against the order dated 18/10/1992 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant against the said order dated 28/3/1992.
(2.) This appeal was heard and disposed of by us on 21/3/1996 by passing the following order: "We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent-original complainant at some length. For reasons which we will state hereafter, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Bar council of India holding the appellant guilty of misconduct. In view of our decision to set aside the view taken by the Bar council of India against the appellant the special leave petition which arises out of the rejection of the review application does not survive. Both the matters will, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs. "we, therefore, set out the following reasons in support of our said order dated 21/3/1996.
(3.) Before we proceed to give reasons in support of our order referred to above allowing the appeal, it would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, the original Complainant/respondent 1 herein had instituted a money suit in the Bombay City Civil court against one Smt. Virginia D'souza for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,000. 00 due under a bill of exchange. Respondent 1 was represented by Advocate, Mr. Mirchandani f (since deceased) in the said suit. An ex parte decree was passed on 14/12/19844 in favour of Respondent 1 and against the defendant Mrs. Virginia D'souza. The appellant who is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar council of Maharashtra since 1981 and mainly practising in Cooperative courts was introduced with the mother of Respondent 1/08/1986 by one Mrs. Deshpande, Advocate. Respondent 1 along with her mother is said to have met the appellant in the City Civil court, Bombay when the appellant was required to identify Respondent 1 in the execution proceedings of the ex parte decree obtained on 14/12/1984 in which the moveables belonging to Mrs. D'souza were attached. It is said that the said Mrs. D'souza obtained the address of the appellant from the Bailiff working in the Office of the Sheriff of Bombay, approached the appellant offering to pay the decretal amount by instalments. According to the appellant a meeting was held in his 629 office on 24/9/1986 in the presence of Respondent 1, her mother and the said Mrs. D'souza wherein the parties reached an agreement for payment of the decretal amount by instalments and a sum of Rs. 500. 00 was paid towards the decretal amount to the appellant. The appellant's further case is that in pursuance of the agreement to pay the decretal amount by instalments Respondent 1 requested the Sheriff of Bombay to remove the watchman from the property of Mrs. D'souza but the attachment may be continued. According to the appellant the receipt of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 500. 00 and a further payment of Rs. 1,500. 00 paid by Mrs. D'souza were recorded in the execution proceedings which were signed by Respondent 1 on being identified by the appellant. On 27/11/1986 a further sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 was paid by Mrs. D'souza towards the decretal amount, the receipt of which was again recorded in the execution proceedings.;