TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ouncil of India on a complaint made by the third respondent against the appellant, a practising lawyer. The said Disciplinary Committee found that the appellant had misconducted himself within the meaning of Section 35 of he Advocates Act, 1961 and had acted in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer and his professional ethics. The appellant was, therefore suspended from practice for a period of two year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idered. 3. We do not find any discussion of the evidence in the impugned order of the said Disciplinary Committee. It is not enough to state that the evidence on record proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the complainant had consulted the appellant and, when the appellant did not take any interest in her case, she lost it before the Prant Officer for want of documents which were in the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed before these authorities, it is difficult to see how the appellant could have been held to be guilty of dereliction of duty for not appearing before them on behalf of the complainant. There is no documentary proof whatever that fees were paid by the complainant to the appellant. Even as to the documents which were supposed to have been handed over to the appellant for being produced before ....