Munish Chandra Goyal Vs. Sudesh Rani & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7424 of 2001
Petitioner: Munish Chandra Goyal
Respondent: Sudesh Rani & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7424 of 2001
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 18, 2002
Head Note:
ADVOCATES LAWS
Advocates Act, 1961
Amount of costs to complainants – Two month’s time given – Amount sent to one of the complainants – Refusal – Bar Council approached for deposit and extension of time – On refusal, appeal filed – Amount deposited as per directions – No malafides intention to comply orders. Held that time stands extended up to the date when deposit was made. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. By order dated 9.12.1998. Bar Council of India, while holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and directing his licence for practice to be suspended for a period of two years, directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,000/- by way of costs payable to the complainants, eleven in number. The amount was to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order, failing which the licence was to remain suspended for an additional period of one year. The appellant, on being communicated with the order, sent the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to one of the complainants who refused to accept the same and hence the appellant moved an application before the Bar Council of India tendering the amount for deposit and also seeking an extension of time for depositing the amount of costs as by that time the period of two months was over. The application was rejected by the Bar Council of India vide order dated 18.2.2001 which is the subject matter of this appeal. On 14.9.2001 this court directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,000/- with the Bar Council of India and requested the latter to remit this amount to each one of the complainants in accordance with its order and give information to this Court of such disbursement. The amount was deposited by the appellant on 20.9.2001.
2. The only question arising for decision in this appeal is whether this Court should grant an extension of time to the appellant for compliance with the order of the Bar Council of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India states that the Bar Council of India has acted only as a quasi-judicial authority and it has no interest of its own in opposing the prayer made by the appellant. It is also stated by him that on the amount now having been deposited by the appellant, the same has been remitted to the complainants in accordance with the order of the Bar Council. Eight of the complainants have received the amount and the Bar Council of India is in the process of remitting the amount to the remaining three complainants, who could not be contacted earlier. The fact remains that the appellant has complied with the order of the Bar Council though with a delay.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as we do not find any malafides on the part of the appellant for delay in compliance of the order of the Bar Council of India, we direct the time appointed for depositing the amount of costs by the appellant, in terms of the order of the Bar Council dated 9.12.1998, to be extended upto the date on which the amount was actually deposited by the appellant.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
1. By order dated 9.12.1998. Bar Council of India, while holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and directing his licence for practice to be suspended for a period of two years, directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 11,000/- by way of costs payable to the complainants, eleven in number. The amount was to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order, failing which the licence was to remain suspended for an additional period of one year. The appellant, on being communicated with the order, sent the amount of Rs. 11,000/- to one of the complainants who refused to accept the same and hence the appellant moved an application before the Bar Council of India tendering the amount for deposit and also seeking an extension of time for depositing the amount of costs as by that time the period of two months was over. The application was rejected by the Bar Council of India vide order dated 18.2.2001 which is the subject matter of this appeal. On 14.9.2001 this court directed the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 11,000/- with the Bar Council of India and requested the latter to remit this amount to each one of the complainants in accordance with its order and give information to this Court of such disbursement. The amount was deposited by the appellant on 20.9.2001.
2. The only question arising for decision in this appeal is whether this Court should grant an extension of time to the appellant for compliance with the order of the Bar Council of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India states that the Bar Council of India has acted only as a quasi-judicial authority and it has no interest of its own in opposing the prayer made by the appellant. It is also stated by him that on the amount now having been deposited by the appellant, the same has been remitted to the complainants in accordance with the order of the Bar Council. Eight of the complainants have received the amount and the Bar Council of India is in the process of remitting the amount to the remaining three complainants, who could not be contacted earlier. The fact remains that the appellant has complied with the order of the Bar Council though with a delay.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as we do not find any malafides on the part of the appellant for delay in compliance of the order of the Bar Council of India, we direct the time appointed for depositing the amount of costs by the appellant, in terms of the order of the Bar Council dated 9.12.1998, to be extended upto the date on which the amount was actually deposited by the appellant.
5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
