JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY AND ORS. INSC 958

The present appeal, under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "theAct") is filed against the final judgment dated 24.03.2002 of the Disciplinary Committee of the BarCouncil of India [hereinafter referred to as Disciplinary Committee] in BCI Transfer Case No. 74 of1995, whereby the Committee dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein holding that no caseof any misconduct is made outThe facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the present complaint was filed undersection 35 of the Act by Jaipur Development Authority against the present respondents before theState Bar Council of Rajasthan in the year 1994 which was entrusted to the Disciplinary Committeeof the State Bar Council of Rajasthan. Since the proceedings could not be completed in thestipulated period of one year, the complaint was transferred to the Bar Council of India in the year1995, registered as Transfer Case No. 74 of 1995.3. The allegations made in the complaint was that appellant engaged the Respondent No.1 herein onretainer basis in order to defend its cases pending in the different Courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan. In theyear 1990, Respondent No.1 was appointed to defend Jaipur Development Authority in someReference cases under section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Also, on 05.10.1990,Respondent No.1 was engaged to defend Jaipur Development Authority in the Land AcquisitionReference No. 14 of 1982, Abdul Samad & Ors Vs. Jaipur Development Authority in Civil Court atJaipur City. Even his retainership fee was enhanced by additional amount of Rs. 600/- per month

We, therefore, order and direct that respondent no.1 be suspended as an Advocate from practicefor a period of six months from today.28.So far as the defence raised by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, we have considered thesame in the light of the records also. So far the allegations against the respondent no. 2 areconcerned, he has appeared in the aforesaid reference case as a lawyer and he was not a claimanthimself. It is true that he is sitting in the same chamber as that of respondent no.1, but from thismere fact, it cannot be held that he is also guilty of the same or similar misconduct as that ofrespondent no.1. Although his relatives have purchased the right to claim compensation and havesubstituted themselves as claimants, but he is only representing them in the capacity of an Advocate