Indure Ltd.v.Deo Raj Guptha BCI TR Case No.58/1993

The complainant company is one of the highest producer of ash handling system in the world, having large manufacturing and engineering factories. The respondent was the Advocate of the company
and various cases related to the company was entrusted with him. In April 1986 NELCO precisions, a company located atFaridabad gave a false advertisement in the papers that Indure Ltd. is using the parts manufactured by NELCO precisions. To stop this false advertisement Indure Ltd. instructed the
respondent to serve a legal notice to NELCO. Notice was sent, but the notice has not given the desired result. Therefore, the respondent was instructed to file a case against NELCO. A plaint was prepared and it was approved by the petitioner company and necessary court fees was also paid to him. The respondent informed the complainant that he has filed the suit in the Delhi High Court and got a stay order. Infact no suit had been filed.
The complainant filed a complaint in the Bar Council of U.P.alleging professional misconduct against the respondent. They alleged that the respondent had made a similar type of misrepresentation earlier also when he was instructed to file a case against Anoel Industries Ltd.A criminal complaint was also filed against Gupta in this regard. The respondent filed a very brief counter and failed to give any explanation about the serious allegation of professional misconduct. He simply prayed that for the same matter there is already a criminal case pending against him, so the Bar Council should not proceed with the complaint. When the petition was pending before the Bar Council, the criminal case was disposed off and he was convicted. Since the U.P Bar Council could not able to complete the enquiry within one year the petition was transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India examined the complainant and the
respondent and finally came to the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent the complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and directed the removal of his name from the roll of Advocates and prohibited him from practicing as an Advocate.