Ú\214 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2581 OF 2005

Chander Prakash Tyagi ... Appellant

Versus

Shri Benarsi Das (Dead)

By LRs. and others ...Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2633 OF 2005

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 2005), preferred

under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, is directed against

order dated 30.6.2002, passed by the Disciplinary Committee of

Bar Council of India (B.C.I.) whereby the appellant Chander

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Prakash Tyagi, Advocate, has been held guilty of violation of

Chetan Kumar

Date: 2015.03.18

15:46:51 IST

Rule 33 of Section II contained in Part VI of Bar Council of India

Reason:

Rules. Consequently, appellant has been suspended from

Page No.2 of 11

practicing for a period of one year, and directed to pay cost of

Rs.2,000/-, out of which Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the

respondent-complainant and rest of the amount is directed to be

deposited with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund of B.C.I. The

appellant is further directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- vide order

passed on review application, dismissed by the Disciplinary

Committee, which is also challenged through special leave in the

connected Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2005.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

3. Succinctly, factual matrix of the case is that the

respondent-complainant Banarsi Das instituted case No. 137 of

1994 before District Judge, Saharanpur, for his appointment as

guardian of his grandson Komal Arora under Section 7 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as complainant’s son Avtar

Singh (father of the minor Komal Arora) had died in the year

1992. In said case, appellant Chander Prakash Tyagi, advocate,

was engaged as his counsel. It is alleged by the complainant

that the appellant did not contest his case properly as he was in

collusion with the "opponents", namely, Dilawar and Nazim,

sons of Raja Hasan, and the petition for appointment of

guardian was dismissed for non-prosecution on 2.1.1995. The

Page No.3 of 11

complainant had shown all papers relating to the case to the

appellant and paid his fee. Later, appellant-advocate accepted

brief of Dilawar for filing suit against complainant’s grandson

Komal Arora in subsequently filed proceedings. On this,

complainant gave notice to the appellant on 30.7.1998 to get

himself disengaged from Dilawar in suit Nos. 565 of 1995 and

573 of 1995, instituted before Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Saharanpur, against Komal Arora and others. However, he did

not care, on which complainant made a complaint, supported by

affidavit and other papers, to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh,

Allahabad (for short "the State Bar Council").

4. The State Bar Council registered above complaint as

Disciplinary Case No. 13 of 1999 and issued notice to appellant

Chander Prakash Tyagi (Advocate). In his reply before

Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, the appellant

admitted that he was engaged by Dilawar and Nazim in suit Nos.

565 of 1995 and 573 of 1995 against Komal Arora. However, he

pleaded that no sooner he came to know that he