BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR

COUNCIL OF INDIA
UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961

D.C. APPEAL NO. OF 2005

IN
AGAINST D.C.C. No.9 OF 2004

[ON THE FILE OF STATE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BAR

COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. M. Shreedhar, Advocate,

S/o S.S. Moorthy,
R/o 15, Ambika Nagar,
2nd Street Chinna Kodungaiyur,
Chennai -51 … Appellant/Respondent

Versus

Mrs. Chenchulakshmi,
W/o Late Sekar,
Old No.36, New No.52,
Muthu Naicken Street,
Broadway, Chennai-600 001. …Respondent/Complainant

The Appellant above named begs to submit as follows:-

1.(a) The appellant M. Shreedhar, S/o S.S. Moorthy, Hindu aged

about 33 years, residing at 15, Ambika Nagar, 2nd Street Chinna
Kodungaiyur, Chennai –51.

The Appellant appears by Advocate Shri Uday Kumar, Roll

No.D509/96 (R), enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi, the Address for
the service of Appellant is 16, Todarmal Road Near Bengali Market,
New Delhi-1.

1
(b) The respondent Mrs. Chenchulakshmi, W/o Late Sekar, Hindu
aged 44 years, residing at Old No.36, New No.52, Muthu Naicken
Street, Broadway, Chennai-600 001.

2. The appellant files, this appeal against the Order dated

9.4.2005 in case No.D.C.C 9/2004 of the Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai.

3. The Complaint against the advocate, who is the

Appellant/Respondent in this appeal was filed on 15.02.2003 in the
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as referred the Complaint for

enquiry to its Disciplinary Committee on 10.4.2004. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council to which the matter was referred has
made an Order for punishment against the advocate, suspending
him.

4. The Committee has also passed an order for costs of

Rs.5,000/- payable by the Appellant to Respondent Complainant.

5. The order of the Disciplinary Committee will come into

operation w.e.f. 9.4.2005.

6. The appellant has made no application to the Disciplinary

Committee of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for stay.

The order of the Discipl9onary Committee of the Bar Council

of Tamil Nadu was received in person by the Appellant on 26.4.2005.
Hence the appeal is in time.

The Appellant has paid Rs.100/- fee for the appeal on

27.04.2005 in cash.

2
 The appellant files this appeal for the following amongst other

GROUNDS

1. The order of Bar council of Tamil Nadu Chennai, is not at all

maintainable either on facts or on law.

2. Because the order of the lower forum is against the principle

of nature Justice.

3. Because the order of Lower forum failed to consider that the

basic principle law that the complainant should prove and
establish her case to the satisfaction of authority from whom
she pleads. The authority cannot pick hole from the defence
and use the same for supporting the complaint. If it happens
to be allowed it is clear case for prejudice.

4. Because the lower forum failed to note that there is no direct

proof either documentary or any eye witness to establish that
the Complaint had given Rs.50,000/- to file a separate suit for
recovery of possession.

5. Because the lower forum failed to note that Mr. Nandgopal

who accompanied complaint to hand over the alleged fees
was not examined.

6. Because the lower forum failed to note that the person who
deposed evidence as witness PW-2 and PW-3 were not
mentioned about their role played in support of the
Complainant.

7. Because the lower forum failed to appreciate that even the

PW-2 and PW-3 never deposed that the complainant gave
money at their presence. They are only hear say evidence.

3
8. Because the lower forum wrongly came to the conclusion that
once stamp papers are given it can be presumed that it has
been accompanied by fees of Rs.50,000/-.

9. Because the lower forum failed to consider that transaction

between late S.K. Sundaram is no way connected to the
present Complainant.

10. Because the lower forum failed to consider that only on the
request of the Complainant, Complaint under Section 200 Cr.
P.C. was filed on 13.2.2002 and fact that she has been
cheated by 3rd party is admitted in page 2 para I of the
Complaint.

11. Because the lower forum misconceived the averments made

in Complaint that she wants refund of Rs.50,000/- paid fees
for filing Recovery of possession suit but had given finding that
negligent in conducting of Suit bearing No.O.S.No.9152/1995
is baseless.

12. Because the observation made by the lower forum is that the
Complainant lost her husband in a accident was tossed by 2
Advocates are irrelevant comments without even a
semblance of pleading in the Complaint which itself shows the
bias attitude of the disciplinary committee as the committee
was predetermined.

13. Because the lower forum inadvertently made observation that

the complainant had frequently visited the Respondent when
such pleading is not there in the Complaint.

14. Because the diary entry Ex.C-1 is only a documentary

evidence produced by the Complainant in support of payment
to the Respondent when the same was not consider the Lower

4
 Forum ought to have rejected the Complainant on this ground
only.

15. Because the lower forum inadvertently straight away came to

the wrong conclusion that acceptance of Stamp paper worth
Rs.19,000/- accompanied with fees of Rs. 50,000/- without
any evidence is totally baseless and not sustainable.

16. Because the lower forum failed to consider that there is no

damage or loss caused to the suit O.S.No.9152/95 till the
change of Vakalatnama given on the request of complainant
by the Respondent. There is also no pleading in the
Complaint with this regard or any damages sustained by the
Complainant for any act of negligence by the Appellant.

17. Because the lower forum failed to take note of the fact that till
6.2.2003 the relationship between complaint and Respondent
was cordial and all dispute arose subsequent to receipt of no
objection on Vakalatnama. It is further submitted that once no
objection on Vakalatnama has been given with consent after
getting necessary acknowledgment then subsequent dispute
is after thought and against the eye of the law and the same
are not sustainable.

18. Because the lower forum failed to consider that what prevent
the complaint from giving the above complaint before getting
no objection on the vakalatnama.

19. Because the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 are baseless and
imaginary based on hear say and not supported with any
documentary proof. It is further submitted that the name of the
aforesaid witness did not appeared in the Complaint as their
role in the present dispute. It is further submitted that PW-2
and PW-3 are Union leaders in the Complainants Bank and
Complainant is also a member of the said Union.

5
20. Because the lower forum erred in conclusion that the pending
of Civil Suit is barred from filing a criminal Complaint under
Section 200-Cr. P.C. for the offence under Section 420 IPC
and further the Complainant has not filed any Suit and she
only Defendant No.3 in O.S. No.9151/95.

21. Because the lower forum erred in conclusion that the

complainant had made the appellant in April 2000, is without
any evidence and based on oral evidence of PW-1.

22. Because the lower forum had erroneously accepted the

version of the Complainant based on the oral evidence that
the Appellant had made false representation that he had filed
the Suit for recovery without any piece of evidence.

23. Because the lower forum wrongly has framed charges

whether there is a primefacie case exist against the Appellant
who is the ex-counsel for the Complainant.

24. Because the one of the member of the committee has

personal animosity against the appellant as he has not
supported him in the past Bar Council Election.

25. Because the lower forum failed to consider the two version of
payment of the fees mentioned in the Complaint one for
pursuing the Criminal Case and second one is for filing suit for
recovery. It is further submitted that the lower forum has
mentioned for fixing negligence is only from the inference
argument of the Complainant counsel but not on any
documentary proof.

26. Because the lower forum has wrongly came to conclusion that
the Appellant was in gross negligence but failed to mention
that what damages caused to the Complainant because of his
negligence. Further the lower forum has not given it view at

6
 all but relied on only the oral evidence of PW-1 and also
added the reason for the negligence was the death of
Appellants son baby whereas the Appellant has son at all and
he has got only one daughter who is alive.

22. Because the lower forum failed to consider the oral evidence
of the PW-1 was not in accordance with the pleadings and
same deserve to be rejected in limini.

22. Because the lower forum has not given a clear finding
whether the Appellant has received Rs.50,000/- as fees from
the Complainant but had convicted the Appellant for
professional misconduct and there is no pleading or oral
evidence by the Complainant that the Appellant had colluded
with opposite side and caused damage to the Complainant
case.

The Appellant further seeks liberty to raise additional ground if

any at the time of hearing.

APPELLANT
THROUGH

UDAY KUMAR
ADVOCATE
INDIAN LAW ASSOCIATES
16, Todarmal Road, Bengali Market,
New Delhi
Enclosures:

1. Certified copy of the order complained against with 5 extra

copies.

2. Memo of grounds of appeal with 5 extra copies.

3. Application, for stay with 5 extra copies.

4. Affidavit in support of application for stay with 5 extra copies.

7
5. Vakalatnama

8
 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA
UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961

D.C. APPEAL NO. OF 2005

IN
AGAINST D.C.C. No.9 OF 2004

[ON THE FILE OF STATE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BAR

COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. M. Shreedhar, … Appellant/Respondent

Versus

Mrs. Chenchulakshmi, …Respondent/Complainant

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. M. SHREEDHAR

I M. Shreedhar, S/o S.S. Moorthy aged about 33 years, R/o R/o 15,
Ambika Nagar, 2nd Street Chinna Kodungaiyur, Chennai –51, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-

1. That I am the Appellant herein and as such well acquainted

with the fact of case.

2. I submit that I had filed above Appeal against the order dated
9.4.2005 passed by Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai in
D.C.C. No.9/2004 and I crave leave of this Hon’ble Forum to
read and refer the ground of Appeal as part and parcel of the
accompanying Application.

9
3. I submit that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by its order dated
9.4.2005 received by me on 26.4.2005 had suspended my
practice for three year e.w.f. 9.4.2005 and also directed to pay
a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

4. I submit that the order of the Hon’ble Bar Council of Tamil

Nadu is erroneous and I had preferred the above Appeal
raising various points for consideration.

5. I submit that I have been Practicing as and Advocate from

1995 and till date there is not even single Complaint against
me except the above Complaint, I submit that if the order of
the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is not stayed then the case is
which I am dealing now and the litigants who have entrusted
their cases to me will have serious effect and my practice will
be seriously effected which in turn will cause hardship to me
and my clients.

6. I submit that pending disposal of the above Appeal if the order

of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 9.4.2005 passed in
D.C.C. No.9/2004 is stayed no prejudice or hardship will be
caused to the Respondent but on the other hand if stay is not
granted I will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss,
hence in the interest of Justice the order of the Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu may be stayed.

7. I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to

stay and suspension of the operation of Order of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in
D.C.C. No.9/2004 dated 9.4.2005 suspending the Petitioner
from practice under Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961

10
 for a period of 3 pending the disposal of the appeal filed
against the said Order and thus render justice.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of April, 2005 that the contents
of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

11
 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA
UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961

D.C. APPEAL NO. OF 2005

IN
AGAINST D.C.C. No.9 OF 2004

[ON THE FILE OF STATE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE BAR

COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. M. Shreedhar, Advocate,

S/o S.S. Moorthy,
R/o 15, Ambika Nagar,
2nd Street Chinna Kodungaiyur,
Chennai -51 … Appellant/Respondent

Versus

Mrs. Chenchulakshmi,
W/o Late Sekar,
Old No.36, New No.52,
Muthu Naicken Street,
Broadway, Chennai-600 001. …Respondent/Complainant

STAY PETITION

Petition for stay and suspension of the operation of Order of

the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in
D.C.C. No.9/2004 dated 9.4.2005 suspending the Petitioner from
practice under Section 35(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 for a period
of 3 pending the disposal of the appeal filed against the said Order
and thus render justice.

Dated: 27.04.2005 Counsel for Appellant

Place: New Delhi

12
13