IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On:
Appellants:
Vs.
Respondent:
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
1. The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. He has filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (in short the Act) against order dated may 4, 1996 of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of one year. This order by the Bar Council of India was passed as the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it within a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Act. Section 36B enjoins upon the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council to dispose of the complaint received by it under Section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the State Bar Council. Under Section 35 of the Act where on the receipt of a complaint or otherwise the State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its role has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its Disciplinary Committee.
2. One Srikishan Dass died on January 5,1980 leaving behind extensive properties, both movable and immovable. One Vidya Wati claiming to be the sister and the only legal heir of Srikishan Dass filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of District Judge, Delhi for grant of probate/letters of administration to the estate of deceased Srikishan Dass. This she filed in February, 1980. It is not that there was any will. The complainant Ram Murti (who is now respondent before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and