Honble WADHWA, J.–The appellant is an advocate practicing 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 Discipli- nary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it within a period of one year and proceedings has thus been transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36 B of the Act. Section 36-B 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 Discipli- nary 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 heri 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/let- ters 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 not respondent before us) and two other persons also laid claim to the properties of Srikishan Dass claiming themselves to be his heirs and propounding three different wills. They also filed separate proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Delhi. Since there was dispute regarding inheritance to the properties of Srikishan Dass, Vidya Wati also filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court for declaration and injunction against various defendants numbering 23, including the complainant Ram Murti who is defendant No.21. This suit was filed on February 10, 1982. Vidya Wati had prayed for a decree of injunction against the defendants restraining them from trespassing into property bearing No. 4852 Harbans Singh Street, 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi or from interfering with or disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of immovable properties detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. She also sought a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the properties mentioned therein in the Schedule. It is not necessary for us to detail the properties shown in Schedule-A except to note two properties at 24 Daryaganj, New Delhi bearing No. 4852 and 4852- A. It is stated that this suit is still pending in the Delhi High Court and all the proceedings under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act filed by various persons relating to the estate of Srikishan Dass have also been transferred from the Court of District Judge, Delhi to the High Court and are being tried alongwith the suit filed by Vidya Wati as aforesaid.

(3). It would appear that Vidya Wati also filed various other proceedings respecting the properties left by deceased Srikishan Dass against occupants of otherwise, P.D. Gupta, advocate who is appellant before us had been her counsel throughout in all these proceedings. The complaint alleged against him is that though he knew that there was doubt cast on the right of Vidya Wati inheriting the properties of Srikishan Dass on account of pendency of various proceedings and further that the complainant and others had alleged that she was in fact an imposter and her claim to be sister of Srikishan Dass was false yet P.D.Gupta purchased ground floor of property bearing No.4858-A, 24 Daryaga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document