Kaushal Kishore Awasthi vs Balwant Singh Thakur

Respondent No.1 herein (the complainant) had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Bar Council') on 19.12.2003 against the appellant, who is an Advocate by profession, alleging that the appellant had acted in a manner which amounts to professional misconduct. On that basis, the complainant pleaded that disciplinary action be taken against the appellant. Taking cognizance of the said complaint, a Disciplinary Committee was constituted as the reply dated 03.02.2006 filed by the appellant was found not to be satisfactory. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Disciplinary Committee passed final orders dated 09.12.2006 holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and, on that basis, imposed punishment by suspending his license of practice for a period of two years. The appellant preferred statutory appeal against the said decision of the State Bar Council before the Bar Council of 1 C.A. No. 15540/2017 India (BCI). Vide the impugned judgment, the BCI has affirmed the finding of the State Bar Council as far as holding the appellant guilty of misconduct is concerned. However, it has reduced the term of suspension of license from 2 years to one year along with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Against this order of the BCI, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

From the complaint which was lodged by the complainant before the State Bar Counsel it can be discerned that his allegation was that there was a family dispute, i.e., between the complainant and his brothers, in respect of a property which was in the name of their father and was an ancestral property. It was stated that after the death of their father on 11.10.1989, the said property was divided by the three brothers equally. However, it transpired that before his death, one of the brothers of the complainant influenced his father and got registered the said property in the name of the complainant's nephew, i.e., son of that brother, without the consent of other brothers vide sale deed dated 2 C.A. No. 15540/2017 25.07.1989. The complainant had approached the appellant, who is an Advocate, for filing the Suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed was null and void as it was prepared fraudulently. The appellant acted as his Advocate and filed the Suit. In the said Suit, the parties settled the matter as they agreed for declaring the sale deed as ineffective and requested the Court for division of the property. This resulted in passing of decree dated 24.10.1994 by the Court in which the complainant was declared owner of 0.03 acres along with kutcha house out of the disputed property. Till this stage, there is no quarrel and there is no allegation against the appellant as far as his conducting the said Suit is concerned. However, the complainant further alleged that owing to family crises, the complainant suffered some financial crunch in the month of April, 2003, and he decided to sell his share of land to one Mr. Narsinghmal, son of Surajmal, for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and for the purpose of registration of sale deed, he produced the earlier sale deed before the office of the Deputy Registrar, Dantewada. At that stage, the appellant produced objection letter against the proposed sale deed and objected for registration of the said sale deed on the ground that the complainant did not have full ownership of the proposed land and the market value was also shown less in the said sale deed. It was stated by the complainant that the appellant was neither an interested party in the said sale deed or in 3 C.A. No. 15540/2017 the proposed sale of the land nor was he authorised by any party to raise objections. This act of the appellant in appearing before the office of the Deputy Registrar and objecting to the registration of sale deed was labelled as professional misconduct by alleging that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant in the year 1996 and another sum of Rs.20,000/- to the son of the complainant in the year 1999 and for repayment of the said amount, the complainant had offered half share of the subject land as security. His justification for raising objection, therefore, was that since the land was being sold without clearing his debt, it could not be done.

(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;

(b) reprimand the advocate;

(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.

We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Bar Council of India.

[ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] New Delhi;

December 11, 2017.