2. Smt Urmila Devi Vs Sita Ram Singh – BCI Tr Case No. 21/1987
THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
BCI TR. CASE NO. 21/1987
SMT. URMILA DEVI -Complainant
Vs.
SITA RAM SINGH - Respondent
Present:
SHRI T.P. SINGH, CHAIRMAN, SHRI ADISH C. AGGARWALA, MEMBER SHRI S.L. GUPTA, MEMBER
Advocates Act, 1961 Section 35-Professional Misconduct Complainant, who is a money lender duly registered under Money Lenders Act, engaged the Respondent Advocate as his counsel for filing recovery suits against her borrowers and paid fee, counsel fee and other expenses. The respondent filed 54 suits and did not file the rest.
It was alleged that the respondent-advocate used to withdraw decretal amounts from the courts from time to time without the consent and knowledge of the complainant, which amounted to about Rs. 10,000/-
Held that the Respondent has withdrawn Rs. 40,000/- in all and that he should pay the amount to the complainant within a period of two months and since he is inflicted sentence of suspension in another case for a period of one year, the same punishment is imposed in this case also and the suspension of both the cases would run concurrently.
The cost or the matter has to be borne by the Respondent which is quantified as Rs. 5,0001- alongwith the sum withdrain from the Court Rs. 40,000/- which amount the Respondent has to pay to the complainant within one month, failing which he shall haue to undergo suspension for one year.
ORDER DATED: 23.4.2000
In thia case Smt. Urmila Devi, w/o Ram Prakash Sahu who is a money lender duly registered under Money Lenders Act has filed a complaint against Shri Sita Ram Singh, the Respondent Advocate.
The complainant had stated in her complaint that she had engaged the respondent-advocate as her counsel for filing many money suits against her borrowers and several suits were decreed. He was paid court fees and counsel's fees and other expenses. It is alleged that the respondent-advocate used to withdraw decretal amount from the court from time to time without the consent and knowledge of the complainant. The respondent/advocate has also concealed the real facts regarding withdrawal of the decretal amount from C.C.D. In the cases of T.M. Pilli and Swami Lal, the respondent-advocate had not paid the full court fees in the court. It was further alleged that in July, 1982, the complainant had handed over the original documents And Rs. 560/- as expenses for filing a civil suit against one Annilal.
Similarly in February 1983, the complainant had handed over the original documents and Rs. 230/- as expenses for filing another civil suit against one Mewalal. The non-applicant has neither given the information of filing of these cases nor returned the files. The applicant herself enquired about the filing of these suits in the civil courts at Jabalpur by the non-applicant against these persons. It is apparent that the respondent-advocate has not filed any suit and misappropriated the amount. It was further, alleged that the respondent/advocate had withdrawn the amount in the case of Govind Mochi, Dashrath Mochi and Kandhilal from the Tehsil court making the forged signatures of the complainant but he has not paid the same to the complainant Notice dated 193.85 was served on the respondent-advocate and he was called upon to furnish account of the amount withdrawn by him from C.C.D. in writing and he was also called upon to return all the papers of the pending cases to the complainant and also to repay the amount withdrawn by him and the court fee amount of civil suits of T.M. Pillai and Swamilal. The respondent-advocate did not reply to the notice nor complied with it.
