Professional ethics case DC appeal no. 8/1994

1. DC APPEAL No. 8/1994
APPELLANT v/s RESPONDENT
[Mr. A v/s Mr. R]
Judgement dated : 8-Dec-1994

2. Brief Facts
Mr. R Rs. 10,000 on 16-May-1981
Rs. 60,000 on 4-Oct-1981
Total = 70,000
Rao & Raju Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad
To Build a 3 Bedroom House on Mr. R’s Land Failed to construct the House
Mr. R P.S. Rao – MD of the Rao &
Raju Builders Pvt. Ltd.,
Hyderabad
Suggested to meet Mr. A
Mr. R Mr. A Advised to file a suit
against the builders
Mr. R gave Rs.5000/-
and signed on plaint or
the plaint.

3. After almost 7 years …
Mr. R sent his
Brother-in-law to
meet Mr. A
Brother-in-Law was told that case is in S.R.
Stage [Service Returns Stage]
Mr. R sent Regd Letter
to Mr.A with draft of
Rs. 400/- on 4-Sept-
1991
To take necessary steps so
that case would be taken up
to City Civil Court
No Response
from Mr. A
Again; Mr. R sent
Regd Letter to Mr. A
on 18-Dec-1991
No Response
from Mr. A
Filed Suit Against Mr. A For
Professional Misconduct

4. Issues
1. Whether Mr. R gave Rs. 5000/- to Mr. A to file a suit ?
2. Whether Mr. R Sent Regd letter with draft of Rs. 400/- to Mr. A?
3. Whether Mr. A took any steps in respect of Mr. R’s case?
4. Whether Mr. A is guilty of Professional Misconduct?
5. To what relief?

5. Proceedings in State Bar Council
 Mr. R produced 3 witnesses and some documents to support his case
 Mr. A only examined himself
 On the Basis of evidence and documents produced; Court held Mr. A guilty
of Professional Misconduct
 Suspended from practice for 6 months as punishment
 Mr. A appealed to Bar Council of India Challenging the Orders of State Bar
Council

6. Proceedings in Bar Council of India
Mr. A’s Counsel:
 Argued that there is mistake/contradiction on the part of witnesses
 There is no proof of payment of Rs. 5000/-
 The suit is filed with malafide intention
 Mr. A did gave a reply for the letter with draft of Rs. 400/- to Mr. R on 19-Sept-1991
 Mr. R did not check upon the case even after so many years.
 Pleaded not guilty of professional misconduct

7. Mr. R’s Counsel:
 Argued that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence
 Mr. A did not take any steps in respect of Mr. R’s case
 No proof of a reply letter by Mr. A on 19-sept-1991 hence concocted
the fact
 P.S. Rao was the main witness hence had more weightage in the case
for Mr. R; hence this evidence could not be brushed aside

8. Judgement
 Due to sufficient evidence on Mr. R’s side, it was proved that Mr. R did pay Rs. 5000/- to
Mr. A
 In spite of receiving the fee, Mr. A did not take any steps towards Mr. R’s case
 The plea of Mr. A, sending a reply letter on 19-sept-1991 to Mr. R, was not accepted as
there is no proof of such letter
 Mr. A was found to be guilty of Professional Misconduct and the appeal was dismissed
 Upheld the order of State Bar Council for Suspension of 6 months from practice