https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287612 In disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, a finding of professional misconduct must rest on reliable proof, not unsafe handwriting comparison or untested affidavit evidence. The charge based on alleged drafting of a Section 80 CPC notice failed because the only basis was a self-comparison of writings and expert examination had been refused. The charge based on use of a 5 April 1978 letter also failed because the evidence did not reliably show the letter was handed over to secure a stay in execution proceedings. Retention of Rs. 1,500 after settlement efforts collapsed was proved as wrongful conduct, but the misconduct was limited and the proper punishment was reprimand, not suspension. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:04:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287612 In disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, a finding of professional misconduct must rest on reliable proof, not unsafe handwriting comparison or untested affidavit evidence. The charge based on alleged drafting of a Section 80 CPC notice failed because the only basis was a self-comparison of writings and expert examination had been refused. The charge based on use of a 5 April 1978 letter also failed because the evidence did not reliably show the letter was handed over to secure a stay in execution proceedings. Retention of Rs. 1,500 after settlement efforts collapsed was proved as wrongful conduct, but the misconduct was limited and the proper punishment was reprimand, not suspension. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287612