ORDER

Shri Haresh M. Patel, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 1993, is the plaintiff in Suit No. 433 of 1969, a partition suit pending in the Bombay High Court. Shri Pinakin Bhallal Amin (of M/s. B. Amin & Co.) the appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 9312-9313 of 1994, is an advocate and solicitor practising in Bombay High Court since 1971. Shri Patel engaged Shri Amin to appear as a lawyer for him in his suit. It appears that some differences developed between the client and the counsel which led Shri Patel to move an application before the Bombay High Court seeking discharge of Shri Amin. The prayer for discharge was resisted by Shri Amin, withholding the consent on the ground that certain bills due and payable by Shri Patel to him were outstanding and so long as the bills were not cleared, Shri Patel could not have sought for discharge of Shri Amin, Shri Patel filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra, setting out several instances of misconduct allegedly committed by Shri Amin including the unreasonable withholding of consent to his discharge. The complaint remained pending for quite some time before the State Bar Council. Later on it was transferred to the Bar Council of India which commenced the bearing.

2. While the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was going on, at one stage Shri Amin made a statement before the High Court of Bombay that the complaint filed by Shri Patel, before the Bar Council was dismissed for failure of the complainant to appear before the Bar Council. According to Shri Patel this was a false statement made by Shri Amin before the High Court. This factum was brought to the notice of the Bar Council by producing a copy of the record of the proceedings before the Court. When confronted with this allegation, Shri Amin admitted before the Disciplinary Committee the factum of having made such statement and at the same time, tried to explain the circumstances under which such statement came to be made. Shri Amin also tendered an apology to the Bar Council. On 30.3.1992, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India passed an order holding Shri Amin guilty of professional misconduct for having made a false statement before the High Court of Bombay and awarding the punishment of suspension from practice for three months. Insofar as the complaint made by Shri Patel was concerned, the Disciplinary Committee observed that in view of the abovesaid punishment having been awarded to Shri Amin and his licence to practice having been suspended for a period of three months, it was not necessary for the Disciplinary Committee to go into the merits of the allegations made against Shri Amin by Shri Patel. The proceedings were, therefore dropped.

3. Shri Patel filed an appeal before this Court feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 30.3.1992 to the extent to which it directed the proceedings against Shri Amin being dropped without any adjudication on merits. The appeal is registered as Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 1993.

4. Shri Amin sought for the review of the order, dated 30.3.1992. The review proceedings came to be dropped by an order, dated 6.8.1994 passed by the Disciplinary Committee expressing an opinion that the records of the proceedings were certified to this Court in the appeal preferred by Shri Patel and as the matter was sub-judice here, no order could be passed by the Disciplinary Committee there. Shri Amin has filed two Civil Appeals Nos. 9312 and 9313 of 1994 putting in issue the orders dated 30.3.1992 and 6.8.1994.

5. There is some delay in filing Civil Appeal Nos. 9312-13/1994 attributable to the time lost in prosecuting review proceedings before the Bar Council. The delay is condoned.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India deserve to be set aside and the matter needs to be sent back for