DEVENDRA BHAI SHANKAR MEHTA versus RAMESHCHANDRA VITHALDAS SHETH AND ANR.

DEVENDRA BHAI SHANKAR MEHTA versus RAMESHCHANDRA VITHALDAS SHETH AND ANR.

The appellant actively participated in a fraudulent scheme with the financier, inducing the complainant and others to pay substantial sums under the pretext of legal and incidental expenses for a proposed loan that was never advanced. The appellant misused his position as an advocate, which constitutes professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The findings of the Disciplinary Committee were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, corroborating witness statements, and reasonable inferences; hence, the removal of the appellant’s name from the State Roll is warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta; Respondent: Rameshchandra Vithaldas Sheth
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction / Appeal From Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings, Role of Advocate, Removal From State Bar Roll
Legal Profession/disciplinary Proceedings Professional Misconduct Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings Role of Advocate Removal From State Bar Roll

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devendra Bhai Shankar Mehta

Appellant

Rameshchandra Vithaldas Sheth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction / Appeal From Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant advocate was guilty of professional misconduct by participating in a racket to defraud and cheat a loanee under the pretext of legal expenses and other costs for loan advancement
  2. 2 Whether findings of the Disciplinary Committee were based on reasonable inferences and standard of proof required

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant actively participated in a fraudulent scheme with the financier, inducing the complainant and others to pay substantial sums under the pretext of legal and incidental expenses for a proposed loan that was never advanced. The appellant misused his position as an advocate, which constitutes professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The findings of the Disciplinary Committee were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, corroborating witness statements, and reasonable inferences; hence, the removal of the appellant’s name from the State Roll is warranted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The name of the appellant shall stand removed from the State Roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra.