D.C. APPEAL No.

35/2007
R. PUSHPANGATHEN PILLAI. Appellant
v.
DR. GERGE CLI!E.......Re"pon#ent
LIST $ DATES
16-4-2007 Order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Kerala whereby
the appellant is found guilty of misconduct.
16-11-2007 Pending Appeal the appellant !oluntarily filed an Affida!it with underta"ing to settle
the sub#ect matter on the ground of deposit of rupees one $a"h with interest to ban" from which he
had borrowed loan in which the respondent was the guarantor. the underta"ing was recorded in the
order sheet.
9-4-2011 the matter listed before the Disciplinary Committee and the matter was finally heard. the
appellant submitted an affida!it and stated on oath that he will positi!ely deposit a sum of %s.
&'()(*+, towards full and final settlement of loan with -i#aya Ban" up to &&
th
April ./&&.
accordingly time was granted and was directed that receipt of the deposit shall be sent to the office of
the Bar Council of 0ndia within ten days along with no ob#ection of the respondent.
16-4-2011 receipt of rupees one $a"h is recei!ed in office. the appellant had gi!en underta"ing to
deposit entire amount but he paid only One $a"h. 1owe!er certificate of ban" in this regard is not
anne2ed with this ban" and no ob#ection certificate of respondent is submitted along with and hence
the matter will be decided on merits.
$ACTS
3he appellant had conducted many cases for the respondent and failed to appear in some of the cases
and further alleged that the appellant did not hand o!er interlocutory orders in some cases the
appellant did not return the case bundle despite the demands made by the complainant.
3he appellant obtained some blan" Che4ues and signed papers of the complainant+respondent by
compulsion and the amount was not paid by the appellant and now the ban" is going to initiate
e2ecution proceedings.
3he appellant in his written submission submitted that the Disciplinary Committee has no #urisdiction to
entertain the proceedings on the allegations which is a sub#ect matter before the court of law. Pending
the disciplinary proceedings the appellant handed o!er all the files to the satisfaction of the respondent
and that now only one complain remains regarding the ta"ing of loan from the ban" and ma"ing the
respondent as guarantor and non,payment of the loan.
ISSUES
&. 5hether the appellant has committed any professional or other misconduct by ma"ing the
respondent as guarantor for a!ailing loan and if so what is the punishment6
RATI
7sing some documents of the properties of the respondent and tric"ing him by ma"ing him a guarantor
to a loan is against the grounds of professional ethics of an ad!ocate. 1ence 3he Ad!ocate is found
guilty of professional or other misconduct under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961.
%UDG&ENT
3he Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of 0ndia scanned the materials a!ailable on record and
also ta"en into consideration the statements made by both the parties recorded before the Disciplinary
Committee.
3he appellant had not honored his underta"ing in toto the facts remains that he has deposited one
$a"h against the amount of %s. &'()(*+, towards the full and final settlement of the loan to the
-i#aya Ban". 3herefore the case of the appellant is considered on the 4uantum of punishment.
3he Disciplinary Committee upload the #udgment passed by the State Disciplinary Committee holding
the appellant guilty of misconduct instead of awarding punishment the committee found it #ust and
proper to reprimand the appellant and warned him to be careful in future.
1owe!er the cost as imposed by the State Disciplinary Committee shall be paid by the appellant within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the #udgment failing which the
punishment as awarded by State Disciplinary Committee 8i.e. suspended from practice for a period of
one year and also to pay sum of %s. *///+, to respondent as cost9 shall remains in force.