Natarajan, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the Disciplinery Committee of the Bar Council of India directing the suspension of practice of the appellant Navtej Singh for a period of one year for professional misconduct and also directing him to return a sum of Rs. 1,900/- received by him from the first respondent towards professional services. Before filing the appeal, the appellant had unsuccessfully sought for a review of the order and on the dismissal of the review petition, he has filed. this appeal.
(2.)The first respondent laid a complaint before the Bar Council of India against the appellant alleging professional misconduct and misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,900/ given by him towards the filing of a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers (India) Ltd. The first respondent's case was that since he had engaged the appellant to act as his advocate in certain earlier legal proceedings, he requested him to file a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers ( India) Ltd. for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,474.50 p., and gave him all the relevant papers for the filing of the suit. The appellant-made certain calculations and said that a sum of Rs. 1,906/- would be required towards expenses, Court-fees, legal charges etc. and thereupon, he issued him a bearer cheque for Rs. 1,900/- ( Cheque No. 800856) on 7-10-1982. drawn on the State Bank of India, Moti Nagar Branch, New Delhi. After receiving the cheque, the appellant took his signatures in a vakalatnama and several blank papers. Thereafter. the first respondent was contacting the appellant periodically from November 1982 till the end of December. 1983 to find out the progress of the suit and the dates of hearing. The appellant told him that the suit had been filed and subsequently on various dates he told him that the suit had been posted for appearance of the defendant that the defendant had entered appearance and had taken time for filing the written statement, that a replication statement had been subsequently filed and that the suit stood posted for hearing on 5-1-1984, for marking of documents. When he went to the Court on 5-1-1984, he found the suit was not included in the list of suits posted for the day. When questioned the appellant told him that he had marked the date wrongly as 5-1-1984 and that the suit was actually posted for hearing on 5-3-1984. When he went to the Court on 5-3-1984, he found the suit was not listed for hearing even on that day and he also found the appellant to be absent and he was reported to be out of station. On 10-3-1984 he went to the Court and made enquiries on his own by questioning the appellant's clerk and the suit clerk and he then came to know that no suit had at all been filed by the appellant on his behalf against Messrs. Roneo Vickers (India) Ltd. Thereafter he contacted the appellant in his house and questioned him about the non-filing of the suit. The appellant confessed that a mistake had occurred and gave an assurance that he would file the suit within two days since the last date for filing the Suit was as 14-3-1984. He did not have confidence in the words of the appellant and, therefore, quarrelled with him and demanded the return of the file and the documents and also the sum of Rs. 1,900/- given by means of cheque. The appellant promised to return the papers and the money the next day, but on the next morning, the appellant was not to be found in the house. The appellant's father returned the file and the documents and promised to make the appellant return the sum of Rs. 1,900/- in a day or two. Thereafter, he took the file and the documents to another counsel and had the suit filed on 16-3-1984, i.e. two days after the limitation period, together with an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, the appellant's unregistered clerk, G. K. Sethi, has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant was issued a cheque for Rs. 1,900/- by the first respondent and he had encashed the cheque and given the money to the appellant. Despite the assurance given by his father the appellant did not return the sum of Rs. 1,900/-. It, therefore became necessary to prefer a complaint to the Bar Council of India to seek disciplinary action being taken against the appellant for professional misconduct and also for misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 1,900/- given to him.
(3.)The appellant filed a reply and denied that he had been engaged by the first respondent to file a suit against Messrs. Roneo Vickers (India) Ltd., and that he had been paid a sum of Rs. 1,900/- through cheque. The appellant further denied having told the first respondent that the suit has been filed or that the defendant was taking time for filing written statement or that the suit was being adjourned to various dates for filing replication statement, for marking of documents etc. The appellant further set up a case that the first respondent owed him a sum of Rs. 2,405/- towards arrears of fees and he had sent demand notices for payment of the fees due to him and in order to evade payment of the said sum, the first respondent has concocted a false case and filed a complaint against him.