PARAS JAIN Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notice dtd. 22/7/2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru ('the Bar Council' for short) and seeks quashment of the complaint so registered before the Bar Council by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is an Advocate practicing at Bangalore for the last 44 years. The petitioner becomes a counsel for the decree holder Sri Jinender Kumar Gandhi and his family members in Execution Case Nos.458 of 2007 and 459 of 2007 which were at that point in time pending before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. In the Execution petitions, the 2nd respondent/A. Ramachadnra Reddy is the Judgment Debtor No.3, against whom decree of possession had been passed in O.S.Nos. 9077 of 1996 and 9078 of 1996, along with two other Judgment Debtors who were his parents. The decree was passed on 21/12/2006 and the appeal filed against the said decree by the Judgment Debtors before this Court comes to be rejected in the year 2009. The Judgment Debtors then challenge the decree before the Apex Court, which also comes to be dismissed in the year 2010. The decree, thus, attained finality. The Judgment Debtor No.3 then appears to have taken a contention that the suit schedule property does not exist as it is not identifiable and is said to have protracted the proceedings for decades before the Executing Court. Finally on 3/11/2021 in the final decree proceedings, delivery warrant was issued pursuant to which, the decree holders received possession of the property on 26/11/2021 through the Court Commissioner appointed by the Executing Court.

(3.) The 2nd respondent takes compensation amount, which the decree holders were supposed to receive it, by filing a false indemnity bond and an affidavit, in collusion with the Land Acquisition Officer is the allegation of the petitioner in the averment of the petition. It appears that against the receipt of compensation, proceedings were brought up before this Court which reached the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed all the transferee pendente lite, including the 2nd respondent to deposit the amount together with interest. This was not complied with and proceedings in C.C.C.No.280 of 2011 were instituted. It is the allegation that the Judgment Debtor No.3 has to deposit more than 75/- lakhs compensation towards the amount received by him.