Appeal No 251 of 1982
From the Judgment and Order dated 241081 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India Delhi in BCIT R Case No 28 of 1979
BSingh SKGambhir and Davinder Singh for the Appellant
RPKapur and Rajiv Kapur for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 491 KULDIP SINGH J
DS Dalal was a practising advocate in Delhi
The Bar Council of India by its order dated October 24 1981 removed his name from the rolls of advocates of the Bar Council of Delhi and the sanad granted to him has been withdrawn
This appeal under Section 30 of the is against the order of the Bar Council of India
The State Bank of India lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi on September 4 1978
It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant along with two other advocates was practising under the name and style of Ms Singh and Company a firm of advocates and solicitors having their office at 2670 Subzi Mandi Delhi
It was alleged that the advocates were duly engaged by the Asaf Ali Road branch of the State Bank of India to file a recovery suit against Ms Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd for the recovery of Rs 61216410
Singh and Company the firm at that time was represented by Mr DS Dalal Mr B Singh and Ms VSingh Advocates who were the partners of the said firm and were conducting cases for and on behalf of the firm
It is the case of the complainant that in the year 1975 the file relating to the case which was to be filed against ms Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd containing original and valuable documents was handed over to the Firm by the complainant
Thereafter the Firm submitted a bill for filing the recovery suit which included the professional fees and other miscellaneous charges
An amount of Rs 11475 was paid to the Firm on November 15 1975 for filing the suit which included 13rd of the professional fee plus the miscellaneous charges
This was acknowledged by the Firm under a receipt which was placed on the record
Till December 19 1975 the Firm did not inform the bank as to whether the suit was filed and if so what was the stage of the proceedings
The bank wrote a letter dated December 05 1975 to the Firm asking it to send a copy of the plaint before December 8 1975 for signatures and verification failing which the bank would be compelled to withdraw the case from the firm
At that stage Mr B Singh Advocate one of the partners of the Firm in his letter dated December 15 1975 informed the bank that the suit had been filed on December 15 1975 in the High Court of Delhi
Thereafter the bank appears to have received no communication from the said advocates despite repeated reminders oral and other vise and the bank was kept in the dark about the fate of the case entrusted to the appellant and his associates
492 As there was no response from the appellant the bank engaged the services of Mr RP Arora Advocate in order to find out as to what happened to the suit filed by the appellant and his associates on behalf of the bank
RP Arora in his letter dated March 2 1977 informed the bank that the suit which had been filed on December 15 1975 was returned by the original Branch on January 31 1976 to the Registry of the High Court with objections
Mr Arora in his letter dated March 31 1977 further informed the bank that the entire suit paper book had been returned to Mr B Singh Advocate on July 27 1976 for removing the objection and thereafter the suit has not been re filed in the Registry of the High Court of Delhi
The complainant therefore claimed that the appellant and his associates were guilty of serious professional misconduct as they failed to discharge their professional duties and responsibilities entrusted to them by the bank in its capacity as a client
It was further claimed by the bank that the appellant and his associates had misappropriated the money paid to them for court fee miscellaneous expenses and one third of the professional fee
The complainant further stated that even the documents and other papers handed over to the appellant and his associates for filing the suit were not returned
The complainant was originally registered with the Bar Council of Delhi
On September 19 1979 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi transferred the case to the Bar Council of India on the ground that the case had been pending for more than one year
The Bar Council of India issued notices returnable on November 2 1980
On that date the respondents were not present and as such fresh notices were issued for December 20 1980
Mr DS Dalal though served was not present on December 20 1980 and as such ex parte proceedings were ordered
Notice to Mr B Singh Advocate was returned with the postal endorsement refused
He was also ordered to be proceeded ex parte
The case was posted for January 23 1981 for the evidence of the complainant
On that day the appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated December 20 1980
The ex parte order was set aside conditionally permitting the appellant to participate in the proceedings and the case was adjourned to February 27 1981
On February 27 1981 three witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant and he cross examined them
Thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and finally fixed for evidence on August 22 1981
The appellant again sent an application for adjournment which was rejected
The evidence was con 493 cluded arguments were heard and the order reserved
The Bar Council of India in the impugned order observed as under  From a perusal of the order sheet of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi and also of the order sheet before us it reveals that the respondents have throughout adopted the tactics of non cooperation purposely with a view to protract the proceedings unnecessarily 
It may be mentioned that the complainant had given up its case against Ms V Singh Advocate and as such the Bar Council of India ultimately did not proceed against her
So far as Mr B Singh and Mr DS Dalal are concerned the case against them was proved beyond reasonable doubt and their names were removed from the rolls of advocates of Bar Council of Delhi and the sanads granted to them were ordered to be withdrawn
The appeal before us is by DS Dalal
We have been informed that Mr B Singh Advocate filed a review petition before the Bar Council of India on October 221989 which is still pending
The Bar Council has also granted stay of the order dated October 24 1981 with the result that MrB Singh is continuing with his legal practise
This appeal was argued before us by Mr
BSingh Advocate
It is not disputed before us that MrBSingh and Mr DSDalal were the main partners of the Firm
It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs11475 was received by these advocates towards the filing of the suit and further that the connected documents and papers were received by them
BSingh learned counsel for the appellant primarily argued that the suit was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court on December 15 19 5 but the record of the suit file was misplacedlost by the High Court registry
He further stated that by his letter dated August 20 1977 he informed the bank about the suit file being not traceable and further that the record of the suit was to be re structured and refiled
We have been taken through the copy of the letter dated August 20 1977 written by MrBSingh on behalf of the Firm to the Regional Manager State Bank of India Parliament Street New Delhi
The relevant paragraph is as under 494 However as already intimated two bank cases one of Delhi Flooring P Ltd of Asaf Ali Road branch and second of JMAIE Corporation of Jungpura branch filed by the undersigned in Delhi High Court have been misplacedlost by High Court Registry and the record reconstruction petitions have already been given to the branches in March 1976 itself
In case the said suits have not already been got restored through some other learned counsel and the assistance the undersigned is required for the restorationreconstruction then he is willing to cooperate fully without charging any fee and without insisting on the payment of his outstanding bills first
The undersigned can work only when he is allowed to work in terms of his approved schedule of fees and the payment is made of all his bill forthwith
 The letter dated August 20 1977 quoted above was not produced before the Bar Council of India
It has been placed before us for the first time
Apart from the ipse dixit of the appellant and MrB Singh in the above letter there is no evidence on the record to show that the suit file was misplaced or lost by the High Court Registry
On the other hand there is cogent and reliable evidence on the record to show that the Delhi High 
Court Registry returned back the papers to Mr B Singh for removing the objections raised by it
Mr RP Arora Advocate appeared as a witness before the Bar Council of India
The relevant part of his evidence is as under I know the respondents in the case
I was instructed by the complainant in case to find out as to whether the respondents had filed the suit against the Delhi Flooring P Ltd in the High Court of Delhi which was entrusted by the complainant with the respondents
Accordingly I went to Delhi High Court and made enquiries to find out whether such a suit has been filed
On enquiry I came to know from the registers of the High Court that the suit had been filed on behalf of the complainant against Delhi Flooring P Ltd on 15th December 1975
1 found from the records that the office has not registered the suit 495 because of certain objections raised by the office
I also came to know that the entire suit filed had been returned to the respondents for complying with the objections and to refile the suit
This was so returned on 27776
The enquiries that were made by me in the High Court office was during March 1977 and till that date the suit had not been refiled by the respondents Mr RP Arora Advocate after examining the records of the Delhi High Court had sent two reports to the State Bank of India
In his report dated March 2 1977 he stated as under  As desired by you to know the whereabouts of the above noted case I contacted the concern clerk in the Original Branch of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and also inspected the registers of the Original suits
The above noted case was filed by Ms Singh  Co on 15121975 but there were certain objections by the original branch and on 31176 the said case file was returned to the registree by the original branch
The register of the registree in respect of the period from 3111976 is not available and I shall let you know the upto date information when the said case was returned to Ms Singh  Co within a short period
 Subsequently in his report dated March 31 1977 Mr RPArora Advocate gave the following information to the bank I have enquired from the Original section of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi that the file of the above stated case was returned to Shri BSingh on 2771976 as the said case was under objections
So far he has not again filed the said case in High Court
 Both the above quoted reports have been proved on the record of the Bar Council of India as evidence
The Bar Council of India on appreciation of the evidence before it came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant and Mr B Singh was proved beyond doubt
The Bar Council of India concluded as under 496 
After having gone through the evidence and the documents produced in the case carefully we have come to the conclusion that the complainant had entrusted the suit to be filed against Ms Delhi Flooring Pvt Ltd with the necessary papers and Rs 1140074 for expenses etc
to the respondent advocates
It is also established that the respondents have filed the suit on 15121975 with some objections deliberately and when the papers were returned by the High Court they had not refiled the suit for a pretty long time and as is established tiff this day
So we have no hesitation to conclude that the respondents have misappropriated the amount realised by them from the Bank without filing the suit in a proper manner
 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence on the record against the appellant
We see no ground to interfere with the order of the Bar Council of India
We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein
We therefore dismiss the appeal
No costs
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On State s appeal against enhancement of compensation for a compact area of 10 acres of land laid out as building sites with fully formed roads and drainage and acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the High Court reduced the compensation holding that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of the area acquired proportionate deduction in compensation ought to be made
The claimant filed appeal by special leave to this Court
Allowing the appeal this Court Held 11
The High Court was wrong in principle in reducing the compensation on account of roads and drainage
The fact that these improvements had been made on the land acquired shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the improvements
p 891E F 12
Accordingly the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Reference Court is restored
p891F