Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

When the complaint case was pending before the Disci- plinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Maharashtra, the said Disciplinary Committee called upon the appellant to file and affidavit. Pursuant to the direction of the State Bar Council of Maharashtra, the appellant filed an affidavit dated November 26, 1987 indicating therein the particulars of the documents drafted by the appellant at the instance of the said Shri Balubhai Modi for advancing loans to different persons intending to get loan accommodation. The complain- ant-respondent also deposed before the Disciplinary Commit- tee of the State Bar Council and had applied for issuing summons to the witnesses namely to the deponents of the affidavits affirmed by Shri Munjibhai M. Shah and Shri Devendra Shashikant Dyanmhotre, who had stated in their affidavits that they had also become victim of fraudulent action and cheating by the said Shri Balubhai Modi in conni- vance with the appellant Devendra Mehta. The appellant op- posed examination of such persons as witnesses in the pro- ceedings inter alia on the ground that the said affidavits had disclosed independent grievances of the deponents and the said deponents had not complained before the Bar Coun- cil. It, however, appears that the State Bar Council of Maharashtra overruled such objections of the appellant. The appellant in an attempt to stall the proceeding before the State Bar Council moved a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition No. 1897 of 1988 in the High Court of Bombay inter alia chal- lenging the legality and validity of the said complaint proceeding before the State Bar Council. Such Writ Petition, however, was rejected by the Bombay High Court on April 27, 1988 and the matter thereafter proceeded before the State Bar Council and then stood transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India. The Disciplinary Commit- tee of Bar Council of India examined and recorded evidences of Prafulchandra Shah (CW 2), Munjibhai M. Shah (CW 3), Shashikant D. Dyanmhotre (CW 5), Bhawanji Bharot (CW 6) and Mahesh Ramanlal Shah (CW 4). It may be noted here that Mahesh R. Shah (CW 4) an advocate had acted for Praful- chandra Shah in Criminal Case. The appellant and complainant had also deposed in the said disciplinary proceeding before the Bar Council of India and their respective statements were also recorded.

696

ORDER:

"The name of respondent-Advocate Mr. Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta, Advocate on the State Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra be removed from its Roll. He shall pay Rs.2,000 as costs of these proceedings to complainant Mr. Rameshchandra Vithaldas Sheth."

At the hearing of this appeal, it has been very strongly contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Cous- teau of India had proceeded with a closed mind presumably being influenced by the serious nature of complaint made by the complainant-respondent without appreciating properly that the appellant had no role in the matter of alleged fraudulent activities and of cheating by Shri Balubhai Modi and/or some other persons. The appellant had only rendered the professional service as an Advocate in a fair and proper manner. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a practising counsel and he was engaged by the said Shri Balubhai Modi for preparing the documents of mortgage, on inspection of the records of the complainant for advancing the proposed loan for Rs. seven lakhs. The appellant in his professional capacity had to give his advice. Accordingly, he had looked into the docu- ments placed before him by Shri Balubhai Modi and the com- plainant and prepared the draft deed for mortgage and he had also advised his client Shri Balubhai Modi for compliance of the conditions mentioned in the draft deed before advance- ment of loan so that his client Shri Modi was properly secured. The learned counsel has also contended that such action on the part of the appellant was only fair and proper and any responsible. Advocate when engaged by a client was expected to do in the manner in which he had acted. The learned counsel has further contended that it is not a case of the complainant or anybody that the appellant had given any advertisement for advancing loan to any person and it is also nobody's case that he on his own had induced persons to seek such loan and/or he had referred the complainant or any other person to Shri Balubhai Modi or to any other person for getting such loan. It has been contended by the learned counsel that it is the positive case of the complainant- respondent that pursuant to the advertisement given by Shri Balubhai MOdi he had approached Shri Balubhai Modi for a loan for running his business and Shri Balubhai Modi had clearly stated to the complainant that such loan could be advanced if on inspection of the properties of the complainant the financiers would decide that such loan could be advanced to the complainant and such loan would be advanced on the basis of advice to be taken from the lawyer of the financiers and on execution of proper mortgage deed, on scrutiny of the relevant papers and documents. The appellant did not come into the picture at all when the complainant pursuant to the advertisement had contacted Shri Balubhai Modi. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that admittedly the complainant was referred to the appellant in his capacity as a legal practitioner engaged by the said Shri Balubhai Modi and/or the financiers. The learned counsel has contended that only in the capacity of an Advocate engaged by a cli- ent, the appellant had drafted the deed of mortgage and he had also clearly indicated to the complainant and also to the said Shri Balubhai Modi when the Conference was held in his place that for advancement of loan, the mortgage deed as drafted by him should be executed and the complainant should fulfil the terms and conditions indicated by the appellant in the draft deed. Since the complainant failed to satisfy the terms and conditions as drafted by the appellant, he had advised Shri Balubhai Modi that he could not approve the advancement of loan. The learned counsel has further submit- ted that it is an admitted case that thereafter the com- plainant got another document prepared by somebody else and the appellant refused to approve such document because the same was not drafted by him and he did not want to take any responsibility in the matter on the basis of a document not drafted by him. The learned counsel has contended that such action on the part of the appellant clearly indicates that the appellant was a responsible lawyer who wanted to safe- guard the interest of his client and despite request he did not agree to approve any document not drafted by him. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant had real intention to defraud the complain- ant and to be a party to the alleged racket, he would not have dealt in a straightcut manner and would not have washed his hands in the matter of execution of the document of mortgage. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the case of payment of any money directly by the complainant to the appellant as sought to be made was not true and should not be accepted. The appellant had received his professional fees only from his client namely, Shri Balubhai Modi. He had further submitted that the com- plainant-respondent falsely stated before the Bar Council that the appellant had extorted Rs.10,000 from him and such payment of Rs.10,000 was made by the complainant directly to the appellant. He has submitted that such case was not made out by the complainant in his complaints before the Police. The complainant made embellishment to his case by falsely alleg- ing that the appellant had asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 on the assurance that on such payment mortgage deed would be executed without any delay so that the complainant would get the loan of Rs. Seven lakhs and the appellant had actually received Rs.10,000 from him. The learned counsel has contended that such uncorroborated testimony of the complainant about payment of Rs.10,000 by him to the appellant is not at all convincing and should not be accepted more so when such case had not been made out in the beginning and a false case of payment of Rs.10,000 was sought to be introduced at a later state. The learned coun- sel has contended that if the judgment/order under appeal is scrutinised in the proper perspective, it will clearly reveal a closed mind and a biased approach of the members of the Disciplinary Committee. The Committee unfortunately presumed various facts against the appellant on mere surmise and conjecture for the purpose of coming to the finding that the appellant had been a member of the racket and he had taken part in defrauding and cheating the complainant a large sum of money by assuring him that a loan of Rs. seven lakhs would be advanced to him. The learned counsel has also contended that the Disciplinary Committee has committed a grave error in law in considering the evidences of four witnesses who were total strangers to the case of alleged fraud and cheating of the complainant. Such witnesses had no knowledge whatsoever about the alleged deal relating to the case of the complainant and they claimed to be aspirants of getting loans individually in different transactions. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Disciplinary Committee has committed a grave error in law in considering the evidences of CW 2 Prafulchandra Shah, CW 3 Munjibhai M. Shah, CW 5 Shashikant D dyanmohtre and CW 6 Bhawanji Bharot because the alleged case of complicity of the appellant in being a member of the racket to cheat the said aspiring loanees had not been put to the appellant when he was under