lOMoARcPSD|7709436

CASE 25
(Making False Assurances)

Y.V.R. vs M.K.N.16(3&4) 1989 IBR 542

B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 27/1988

Shri B.N. Bajpayee (Chairman) and Shri S. Sethuraman and Shri N. Rangaraj (Members)

Judgement Dated 10th June, 1988

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant’s Case: Complainant, an electronics engineer has his business premises and a
complex, and next to him in the same complex is the legal consultancy run
bythe Respondent. Complainant and the Respondent developed acquaintance with each
other. When the Complainant wanted to purchase an industrial plot, the Respondent
showed him many plots and promised to settle the one which was selected by the
Complainant. As a legal adviser the Respondent asked the Complainant to pay some
amount to him as advance for the purchase of the plot. Complainant paid the Respondent
money as per his demand. After a few days Respondent demanded more money and the
same was again paid by the Complainant through cheques. After this, the Respondent
started avoiding the Complainant. After continuous efforts Complainant could secure a
promissory note from the Respondent for half the amount and post datedcheques for the
remaining half amount. The cheques were dishonoured. Complainant insisted that some
security should be given by the Respondent in respect of the money due tohim. Respondent
pledged his scooter with the Complainant, and later on lodged a police
complaint alleging that his scooter had been stolen. The scooter belonged to
the Respondent’s wife and the Complainant had to return it to her. Thus, the Respondent
has committed misconduct by his dishonest behaviour.

Complainant also averred that he has filed a criminal complaint against the Respondent
which was still pending.

Respondent’s case:

Respondent denied all the facts except for the money received by him from the
Complainant’s through the cheques. He contended that he had given post datedcheques to
the Complainant in respect of the money and had requested him not to the present it prior
to a particular date. Still the Complainant presented the Cheques prior to that date and as a
result, the same came to be dishonoured. He had also given a promissory note in respect of

Downloaded by DEERGH UPPAL 2050174 ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7709436

the same amount only as security for the money. The promissory note and the post
datedcheques were not given in respect of two different sums of money, but they were in
respect of the same sum of money.

The Respondent also contended that in any event, there is no client and Advocate relation
between them. As such, the complaint must be dismissed in limini. The relation between
them is only a relation of creditor and debtor and it is only a civil case. Therefore, there is
no misconduct.

PROCEEDINGS

From the pleadings of the parties, D.C. of the S.B.C. framed the following issues:

1.Whether the Respondent has committed any professional or other misconduct

as alleged in the complaint?

2. If so, what is the punishment?

At least in respect of half the sum alleged to have been taken by the Respondent from the
Complainant there was no dispute. There was also no dispute in respect of delivery of post-
dated cheques by the Respondent to the Complainant. Respondent contended that he had
given promissory note only as additional security for the money. This did not appear
creditworthy to the D.C. There was also no consistency between the pleadings of the
Respondent and the records in respect of the promissory note. Further, the
post datedcheques were dishonoured. D.C. of the B.C.I. observed that once the cheques
were issued it was the duty of the Respondent to see that funds were sufficient for
meeting the cheques. In the event of failure to do so he ought to have intimated the
Complainant in writing that due to some specific reason he could not make the funds
available and should have requested him to present the cheque on some other date.

Respondent also said in his evidence that the promissory note was got signed
byhim through coercion. There was nothing to show on record that the Respondent has
taken
any steps in that respect. He could have filed private complaint. But there was absolutely
nothing that was done by the Respondent in this regard. This showed that it was a false
statement.

Respondent had undertaken to pay the amount admitted by him. Even till the date of
hearing of the case, he had not done so. In view of the all these circumstances the records
revealed that the conduct of the Respondent was not proper and would amount to
misconduct as the same was done by him in the capacity of a legal consultant.

Downloaded by DEERGH UPPAL 2050174 ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|7709436

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the D.C. of the B.C.I. was led to think
that the Respondent had not only committed misconduct of having made the Complainant
believe that he would settle the transaction in pursuance of which he made him to part with
money which was not returned by him.

ORDER

In view of the pending litigation between the parties, B.C.I. thought it proper to take a
lenient view in respect of punishment and even though the misconduct was of very serious
nature, the Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of two years.

Downloaded by DEERGH UPPAL 2050174 ([email protected])