AMRIT LAL C SHAH Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises under Section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, on the Complaint of one Amrit Lal C. Shah of Delhi against Shri Ram Kumar, Advocate of Delhi. Amrit Lal submitted a written complaint to this Court on 25th of January, 1958, alleging professional misconduct on the part of the respondent. It was stated in the complaint that the applicant had entrusted two cases to Shri Ram Kumar Advocate. Suit No. 802 of 1951 was decided on 8th of May, 1952 in the Court of Small Causes, Delhi, and a sum of Rs. 580/12/- had been deposited in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, to the credit of the applicant. There was also another Suit No. 49 of 1951 which was decided on 7th of August, 1951, in the Court of Shri Sunder Lal, Commercial Sub-Judge, Delhi, in which a sum of Rs. 700/-had been deposited to his credit. The respondent was required to withdraw the above two sums was required to withdraw the above two sums totaling Rs. 1280/12/-and to remit the amount to the applicant. The respondent realised this amount sometime in June 1952 and retained it with himself. It was alleged that a notice through a lawyer was sent to the respondent on 19th of November, 1957, but no reply was received. The applicant said that the Advocate had committed criminal breach of trust and also professional misconduct and he prayed that an enquiry may be instituted an proper action taken.

(2.) In his written statement dated 12th or June, 1959, Shri Ram Kumar admitted having withdrawn the amount and having retained it with himself. His explanation was that the applicant was an old client of his and as he was financially hard up, he requested the applicant to give him a loan of Rs. 1,500/ . The applicant agreed and instructed him to realise the two sums and to treat them as loan. This money was to be repaid by adjustment out of fees which were then due from the applicant to the Advocate and which would become due from the applicant to the Advocate and which would become due in respect of legal work to be put in his hands in future. According to the advocate, this sum was kept by him with the full consent and approval of the applicant. He also alleged that his own records were not traceable despite every possible search. He then said that the entire amount of Rs. 1,280/12//- which had been taken by him as a loan had been fully adjusted in the following matters:

(3.) The enquiry was made by the District Judge, Delhi, who recorded the statements of the parties. No other witnesses were produced by either party. Certain documents were also placed upon the record which were considered by the District Judge. The following charge was then framed against the respondent: