MUKESH Vs. S.M.BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is pending since long and is adjourned on one or other ground with no result, despite the admissions made by the opposite party in written version. The relevant facts stated in the complaint are as under:

(2.) That the complainant firm engaged Mr. S.M. Bansal, Advocate from March, 1990 for seeking his professional services in the Sales Tax matters of the complainant firm and to act, advice and appear before the Authorities under the sales tax and to represent all such matters pertaining to the sales tax as may be deemed necessary for the prosecution of the cases in all stages. He was duly entrusted the job of sales tax which includes to deposit sales -tax, prepare and file sales -tax returns and get the assessment from the Assessing Authority for each year.

(3.) That the respondent assured the complainant that their sales tax matter shall be conducted and looked after properly. Being a client, the complainant had no other choice except to believe and trust his Advocate. Under the present adversary legal system, the star feature is that a party usually appears through an Advocate before the judicial and quasi -judicial authorities. It is an obligation of the party to select his Advocate, brief him, pay the fee demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. After engaging a Lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the Lawyer will look after his interest. The same trust, faith and confidence was kept by the complainants towards respondent Advocate.