Munish Chandra Goyal vs Sudesh Rani And Ors.

1. By order dated 9.12.1998. Bar Councilof India, while holding the appellant guiltyof professional misconduct and directing hislicence for practice to be suspended for aperiod of two years, directed the appellantto deposit an amount of Rs. 11,000/- byway of costs payable to the complainants,eleven in number. The amount was to bedeposited within a period of two monthsfrom the date of communication of the order,failing which the licence was to remainsuspended for an additional period of oneyear. The appellant, on being communicatedwith the order, sent the amount ofRs. 11,000/- to one of the complainantswho refused to accept the same and hencethe appellant moved an application beforethe Bar Council of India tendering theamount for deposit and also seeking anextension of time for depositing the amountof costs as by that time the period of twomonths was over. The application was rejectedby the Bar Council of India vide orderdated 18.2.2001 which is the subjectmatter of this appeal. On 14.9.2001 thiscourt directed the appellant to deposit theamount of Rs. 11,000/- with the Bar Councilof India and requested the latter to remitthis amount to each one of the complainantsin accordance with its order and giveinformation to this Court of such disbursement.The amount was deposited by theappellant on 20.9.2001.

2. The only question arising for decision inthis appeal is whether this Court shouldgrant an extension of time to the appellantfor compliance with the order of the BarCouncil of India.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the BarCouncil of India states that the Bar Councilof India has acted only as a quasi-judicialauthority and it has no interest of its won inopposing the prayer made by the appellant.It is also stated by him that on theamount now having been deposited by theappellant, the same has been remitted tothe complainants in accordance with theorder of the Bar Council. Eight of the complainantshave received the amount and theBar Council of India is in the process ofremitting the amount to the remaining threecomplainants, who could not be contactedearlier. The fact remains that the appellanthas complied with the order of the BarCouncil though with a delay.

4. In the facts and circumstances of thecase, as we do not find any malafides onthe part of the appellant for delay in complianceof the order of the Bar Council ofIndia, we direct the time appointed for depositingthe amount of costs by the appellant,in terms of the order of the Bar Councildated 9.12.1998, to be extended uptothe date on which the amount was actuallydeposited by the appellant.

5. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.No order as to costs.