BRAJENDRA NATH BHARGAVA Vs. RAMCHANDRA KASLIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the original complainant who had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur against the respondents who were then practising as advocates in the Courts in Rajasthan. The complainant happened to be a tenant of a show room. His landlords had filed the suit against him for arrears of rent and possession on 21-12-1974. S/Sh. K. L. Saxena and Satyandra Saxena represented the plaintiffs in that suit. Later on, the two respondents appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. A standard rent suit was filed by the landlord represented by the two respondents against the complainant bearing No. 36 of 1978 and that suit was later decreed and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 300/- per month. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondents got the show room transferred in the name of respondent R. C. Kashliwal's sons, Sarvshri Harshwardhan and Himanshu and Smt. Ritu Kashliwal. The allegation was that the vendees were non-earning members of the family of the two respondents and were, therefore, benamidars. The two respondents continued to represent them in the suit even after the transaction. The two respondents have admitted the fact of the institution of the two suits and their being engaged as advocates for the original plaintiffs and also the fact that the property in question was purchased by the aforesaid three family members but they contended that the consideration was paid by the vendees out of their own funds.

(2.) After examining the facts of the case and the behaviour of the two respondents as representing the original plaintiffs in the two suits, the State Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion that it was a benami transaction as no evidence was led on record to show that the vendees had paid the consideration out of their own funds. The Disciplinary Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that there was an infringement of Rules 9 and 22 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The Committee, therefore, recorded a finding of guilt, professional misconduct and directed that the respondents be reprimanded for their action. The State Bar Council, therefore, visited the respondents with the punishment of reprimand and cost of Rs. 300/-.

(3.) Against the said finding recorded by the State Bar Council, the two respondents filed an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India which after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the character of the transaction being benami was not established, that there was misconduct committed by the present respondents and that the State Bar Council was in error in visiting the respondents with the punishment of reprimand and cost. The Bar Council of India, therefore, set aside the order of the State Bar Council dated September 8, 1991 and exonerated the two respondents. That is why the original complainant has moved this Court.