Facts of the Case
The complainant had given Rs. 2,45,000 to the opponent advocate for the purchase of land situated at Village Sakhare, Murbad Taluka, Thane District.
In 1989, the complainant met her husband.
Thereafter, the opponent advocate was requested to provide the accounts and information regarding the amount entrusted to him. However, he failed to do so.
The complainant subsequently sent letters demanding the accounts and information relating to the amount, but the opponent advocate neither furnished the accounts nor provided any information.
Consequently, the present complaint was filed seeking the accounts and information regarding the amount entrusted to the advocate.
Issues Before the Committee
Issue 1
Whether Rs. 2,45,000 was given to the opponent advocate for the purpose of purchasing land from the farmers?
Finding
According to the reply filed by the opponent advocate, he had engaged Hindurao Brothers as an estate agent and stated that the amount of Rs. 2,45,000 was utilized for the following purposes:
Payment of purchase price to the farmers or landowners.
Commission paid to the estate agent.
Stamp fee.
Miscellaneous expenses.
Issue 2
Whether the amount of Rs. 2,45,000 was fully utilized for the purchase of the land?
Finding
The opponent advocate had executed 10 agreements (MOUs) at different stages for the purchase of the land.
From the amount of Rs. 2,45,000, the following payments were made:
Rs. 61,960 paid to the farmers.
Rs. 3,780 towards stamp fee.
Rs. 3,111 towards registration fee.
Total amount accounted for: Rs. 68,851
The Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee concluded that the opponent advocate had not performed the work properly.
Issue 3
Whether the opponent advocate had committed professional misconduct?
Finding
On 11-09-1989 and 25-10-1989, the complainant sent two letters to the opponent advocate demanding the accounts and information relating to Rs. 2,45,000.
Despite receiving these letters and having the entrusted amount, the opponent advocate failed to provide the accounts or return the balance amount, if any.
The Committee observed that under the Bar Council of India Rules, an advocate cannot retain money received from a client for carrying out the client's work.
By withholding the entrusted amount and failing to render proper accounts, the opponent advocate committed professional misconduct and breached the trust reposed in him by his client.
The Committee further referred to the TNP Advocate case, wherein it was held that whenever an advocate receives money from a client not as professional fees but for carrying out the client's work, the advocate is required to maintain and furnish complete and clear accounts showing how and why the amount was utilized.
Since the opponent advocate failed to do so in the present case, he was held guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that there were 11 documents which did not bear the signature or seal of the complainant.
It treated Rs. 1,000 relating to those 11 documents as unaccounted and further held Rs. 86,000 liable to be recovered by the complainant.
Regarding the opponent advocate's contention that the complainant had relieved him from his position as advocate and thereby discharged him from liability, the Committee held that the complainant had repeatedly demanded the accounts, but instead of providing them, the opponent advocate continued to demand additional amounts. Therefore, the complainant's decision to remove him as her advocate was justified.
Decision
The complainant had claimed only Rs. 83,000 through her letters.
Accordingly, the Bar Council of India Disciplinary Committee held that the opponent advocate was liable to pay Rs. 83,000 together with interest at 10%.
The opponent advocate was suspended from practice for five years as punishment for professional misconduct.
In addition, he was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 towards the costs of the complaint.
The amount was directed to be refunded within three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 16-08-1999.