JANAB MANA MOHAMAD IAMAIL SAHEB Vs. V B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings pertain to the findings of a Tribunal which had been constituted under Section 11(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, (hereinafter referred to as the Act); the findings of the Tribunal have been forwarded to this High Court under Section 12(2) of the Act. By reason of the first proviso to sub -clause (ii) of clause (3) of the Advocate's (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1963, this matter will have to be dealt with and disposed of by this High Court, under Section 12 of the Act.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are as follows : The complainant Janab Mana Mohamed Ismail Saheb had engaged the services of the respondent -Advocate Shri V. Balarathnam to apply to the High Court of Mysore for directing the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal to make a reference on a question of law arising out of an Income -tax case which before the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The respondent -Advocate, accordingly made an application for that purpose, under Section 66(2) of the Income -tax Act, to the High Court of Mysore. The Office of the High Court required that two spare copies of the order of the Appellate Tribunal as also a certificate to the effect that the assessee had not withdrawn the application for reference under Section 66(1) of the Income -tax Act, be produced. The allegation of the complainant was that the respondent -advocate did not inform the complainant about the progress of the case nor called upon the complainant to furnish any copies of any of the proceedings. On 21 -7 -1958, the petition which had been filed before the High Court under Section 66(2) of the Income -tax Act and which had been numbered as C.P. 175 of 58, was dismissed on account of the failure to produce the copies that had been called for. The complainant alleges that this dismissal was due to the negligence on the part of the respondent -advocate. Thereafter, the respondent advocate filed a petition for restoration; that was in C.P. 54 of 59. But, the High Court dismissed that petition. It was pointed out that time had been granted repeatedly from December 1957 till April 1958, as had been requested for from time to time by the respondent -advocate, for furnishing the requisite papers and that in spite of time having been so granted, there had been no compliance by the respondent -advocate, in the matter of producing the necessary documents. The complainant alleging that, he had suffered heavy loss on account of the negligence on part of the respondent -advocate, submitted a petition to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on or about 1 -3 -1960 complaining against conduct of the respondent -advocate. It was thereafter that the Chief Justice constituted a Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act.

(3.) THE relevant portions of the findings of the Tribunal are as follows :