1. The respondent is an advocate practising in this Court. He was charged with professional misconduct. Five charges were framed against him and these were investigated by a Tribunal constituted under the Indian Bar Councils Act. The Tribunal has reported favourably to the respondent on all the charges. We accept the report except so far as it concerns the second charge. We consider that in this case the charge has been substantiated.

2. The complainant is the brother of one Manickammal who instituted in 1932 a suit on the Original Side of this Court in which she asked for a decree for maintenance as a Hindu widow. She sued as a pauper. She claimed that she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per mensem and to a sum of Rs. 52,000 as arrears of the allowance. Through her brother she engaged various advocates to conduct her suit, but subsequently withdrew her instructions. In July, 1933, the complainant approached the respondent with a view to the respondent acting for his sister. The respondent agreed and the complainant alleges that it was arranged that the respondents remuneration was to be 14 per cent, of the sum which might be decreed in the suit, including