S.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) This appeal, filed under S. 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the judgment of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Committee) dated March 25, 1984 in B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 12 of 1982 whereby the Disciplinary Committee has found the appellant guilty of serious professional mis-conduct and has imposed the punishment of suspension from practice for a period of one year.
(2.) The appellant has been practising as an advocate at Ghaziabad and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. He was appearing for the decree holder in Execution Case No. 55 of 1974 M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand v. Shri Ram Contractor in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. A complaint was received by the U.P. State Bar Council from one, Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), a partner of the firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, on August 1, 1979. In the said complaint the complainant has made the following allegations against the appellant:- (1) The appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor and had realised Rs. 1,600/- from him out of which the sum of Rs. 1,500/- was withheld by the appellant with himself and he did not pay it to the decree holder for a period of eight months in spite of repeated requests and in order to harass the decree holder, instead of handing over the same personally to him, he deposited the said amount in Court on May, 2, 1978. The balance amount in of Rs. 100/- was taken by him as fee from the judgment debtor to enable him to get time from the High Court for procuring stay order in the execution proceedings. (2) The appellant received Rs. 245/- from the judgment debtor for getting some other counsel engaged to get the execution proceedings stayed and to see that the auction of judgment debtors property was not approved by the court. The appellant got Shri Mahesh Prasad Tyagi, Advocate engaged from the side of the judgment debtor and charged Rs. 110/- for the purpose and that the execution of the decree was delayed due to careless handling of the case by the appellant since no permission for bidding at auction from the Court was obtained deliberately in order to leave a lacuna for delaying the execution and that Shri M.P. Tyagi, Advocate, taking advantage of the said lacuna, filed objections under Order 21, Rule 72, CPC for cancellation of the auction. (3) The appellant had collected from the judgment debtor a further sum of Rs. 450/- on account of fees and expenses for getting some counsel engaged at Allahabad to get the execution proceeding stayed and for the purpose he had given a letter dated April 5, 1978 to the judgment debtor Shri Ram for Shri V. K. Gupta, Advocate at Allahabad and that Shri Ram instead of going to Allahabad with the aforesaid letter sent a reply paid letter to Shri V. K. Gupta, Advocate making enquiries about the stay but a reply came from the clerk of Shri V. K. Gupta, Advocate on April 14, 1978 that no case of his had been referred to him for the appellant. (4) The appellant, as counsel for the complainants firm, had filed Suit No. 10 of 1977 against Pradhan Shri Ramnath Singh in the Court of Munsif (Judge, Small Causes Court, Gaziabad) with utter carelessness with the result that their new counsel had to take back the plaint on April 26, 1978 to file it in the proper court, namely, the Court of Civil Judge (Judge, Small Cause Court), Ghaziabad. (5) The appellant was indulging in money lending business at very high rate of interest and thus mis-conducting himself as an advocate and had advanced loan to one Sunderlal of Ghaziabad.
(3.) A copy of the said complaint was sent to the appellant by the State Bar Council for his explanation. The appellant submitted his reply to the complaint on December 12, 1979, wherein he denied all the allegations contained in the complaint. The appellant denied having received R. 1,600/- in collusion with the judgment debtor and stated that after the writ for holding an auction of the judgment debtors property had been handed over to the Court Amin, Shri Nanak Chand, the father of the complainant, as a partner of firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, entered into any arrangement with the judgment debtor telling him that if he paid Rs. 1,500/- at once then he would not get the auction held and that he would accept the remaining amount in instalments within two months and that in pursuance to the said arrangement the judgment debtor paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- whereupon Shri Nanak Chand made an endorsement on the writ with the Amin about this payment of Rs. 1,500/- and the fact that he did not want the auction to be held on November 2, 1977. The appellant stated that he was prepared to pay up the amount of Rs. 1,500/- to the decree holder if a receipt signed by both the judgment debtor and decree holder firm was given to him but they were not prepared to grant such a receipt and so he had retained the amount with him as a trustee and soon after the receipt of the registered letter from the decree holder he had deposited the amount in the Court. The appellant denied having received any amount from the judgment debtor for engaging any lawyer for him for obtaining stay. He also stated that he had not been careless or negligent in any manner as an advocate of the complainants firm in the execution case and that permission for bidding by the decree holder under Order 21, Rule. 72 C.P.C. was not taken by him because it was not necessary in view of the amendment of the said rule by the Allahabad High Court and that not objection on that score had been taken by the judgment debtor against the auction sale. As regarding filing of Suit No. 10 of 1977, on behalf of M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand in the Court of Munsif, Ghaziabad as a small causes suit, the appellant stated that he had not acted carelessly and negligently inasmuch as at that time that was the correct Court. He also denied the allegation that he was doing money lending business. The appellant stated that the complaint had been lodged against the appellant because of annoyance on the part of the complainant as the appellant had declined to advance a loan of Rs. 12,000/- which the complainant was demanding from him.;