LAWS(MPH)-1993-4-28

J.S. JADHAV Vs. MUSTAFA HAJI MOHD. YUSUF

Decided On April 07, 1993
J.S. Jadhav Appellant
V/S
Mustafa Haji Mohd. Yusuf Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a statutory appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act of 1961. The brief facts are as under: -

(2.) THE respondent engaged the appellant as a counsel in suit No. 510 of the 1964, this was in April, 1976. The suit was ultimately compromised on 14.6.77. It was ordered that out of the total amount lying with the Court receiver, a sum of Rs. 64,000/ - shall be paid over to the plaintiff; the balance was to be paid to the respondent and possession of suit property was to be handed over to the respondent by the Court receiver. During the pendency of the suit the Court receiver inducted one Usman Ghani Haji Mohammed as a tenant. He filed CS No.7 of 1978 praying for an interim injunction restraining the Court receiver from handing over possession to the respondent. That suit was continued.

(3.) WE pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellant that the order under appeal is unexceptional and there was no case for interference. We felt that the order of suspension of two years was not commensurate with the charges of misappropriation. Therefore, we directed to issue notice to the appellant which came to be accepted by the learned counsel Mr. Bharat Sangal. In spite of the fact that the appellant has not chosen to appear, in order to make over the payment of the amount voluntarily. Therefore, we are left with no option then to decide the case ourselves on merits. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council on a proper appreciation of the evidence disbelieved the so -called receipts evidencing the payment. It has come to the correct conclusion that the receipt dated 8th of August, 1979 was got up on a blank signed paper. Hence, the due execution of the receipt had not been proved by the appellant. Besides, the statement of the appellant that the account books had been lost in transit had been rightly disbelieved. Under these circumstances this is a clear case wherein the misappropriation by the appellant has been fully established. Once this conclusion is arrived at, the question is what is the punishment to be imposed?