BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA:
HYDERABAD
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE [Link]
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2022
- - -
Present : Shri [Link]
Reddy,Chairman
Shri Sanjeeva Rao Sirikonda,
Member
Shri Linga Murthy, Member
***
Complaint Case No.5 of 2019
Between:
Sri Muttamsetty Venkata Vijaya Prasad,
S/[Link] Prasad,
R/o. [Link].40-25-2, Flat No.2, Jasthi Vari Street,
Patamatalanka, Vijayawada.
Ph:9849652499. ….Complainant
Vs.
Sri Karthikeya Kiran Kumar,
Advocate,
S/[Link],
R/[Link].1-18-63, Gun Bazar,
Near Police Lines, Begumpet,
Secunderabad-
….Respondent.
The case is referred to the Disciplinary Committee No. VI by
the Bar Council of Telangana under Section 35(1) of the Advocates
Act, 1961 (Act No.25/1961).
This case is coming on for consideration before the Disciplinary
Committee [Link] and after giving notice to the Advocate – General
1
under Section 35(2) of Advocates’ Act, 1961 it is taken up for
hearing. The Complainant was present for his deposition and Cross
Examination and the Respondent also filed his Counter Affidavit.
Both parties have also filed their written arguments and after
considering the rival contentions and perusing the entire records,
this committee delivers the following: -
ORDER
1). This Complaint is filed U/Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act 1961 by
the Complainant.
2). It is the case of the Complainant that he filed this present case
against the Respondent Under Section 35 of the Advocate Act, 1961,
so that this committee can initiate disciplinary action against the
Respondent for the alleged professional misconduct, wherein the
Respondent issued a legal notice on behalf of the Complainant,
without any explicit instructions from the Complainant to do so.
3). It is the case of the Complainant that he had filed a criminal
case against the company GS Megha Constructions Pvt Ltd and its
directors on the file of XVII ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad and it is
numbered as [Link].399 of 2015. It is further the case of the
Complainant that he had filed a Civil Suit vide O.S. No.79/2015 for
recovery of monies on the file of XII Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada
2
and the same is pending for adjudication. It is submitted that in the
Civil Suit, the defendants filed a copy of the Legal Notice issued by
the
Respondent-Advocate allegedly on behalf of this Complainant. The
Complainant submits that the Respondent is a stranger and he had
never instructed nor authorized the Respondent to issue the Legal
Notice dated 14-10-2014 on his behalf to G.S. Megha Construction
and its Directors. It is submitted that the said Legal Notice sent
through the Respondent was subsequent to filing of criminal case by
the Complainant and the contents of the Legal Notice are totally
contrary to the Civil and Criminal proceedings initiated by the
Complainant and the contents of the Legal Notice will affect both
civil and criminal cases of the Complainant and is therefore
detrimental to his case. Therefore, he has issued a Legal Notice
dt.28.03.2017 to the Respondent, for which the Respondent-
Advocate has not responded.
4). The Respondent in this case has also filed a detailed counter
affidavit, wherein, he submits that, he came in contact with the
Complainant in Secunderabad Courts where the Respondent usually
practices. When the Complainant visited the Secunderabad Courts,
and enquired about one Mr. G.V.B Santosh Kumar Advocate, then
the advocates present there and they guided the Complainant
3
towards the Respondent, as the Respondent and this G.V.B Santosh
Kumar were known as close professional colleagues. That, the
Complainant, after speaking with Mr. G.V.B Santosh Kumar over the
phone regarding the Respondent, decided to handover certain
documents so that the
Respondent could draft a Legal Notice for the Dishonour of Cheque,
including the copy of FIR No.71 of 2014, dt.19/01/2014 of Jubilee
Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. On inquiry by this Respondent
about the FIR, the Complainant told that the FIR and the notice to be
issued related to different transactions. Thereafter, this Respondent
prepared and issued notices dated.14.10.2014 to the addressees
only at the instance of and on the basis of documents given by the
Complainant.
5). It is further submitted by the Respondent that from the
documents handed over by the Complainant, it was noticed that the
same related to dishonour of Cheque No.189, dt.15.7.2014 for
rupees 33,00,000/-. On ascertaining the relevant dates and events,
it was noticed that the cheque in question was presented to the
Bank on 06.09.2014 [within the currency of 3 months from the date
of the cheque], and the said cheque was dishonoured on
09.09.2014. It is further submitted by the Respondent that the
Complainant has made an averment of filing of Case vide O.S. No.
4
79 of 2015, in the Court of XII Additional District Judge at
Vijayawada. The Complainant has not chosen to file a copy of the
plaint thereby disabling to understand and appreciate the alleged
grievance of the Complainant. That the Complainant has provided
several papers to this Respondent from the date of the meeting and
the documents as handed over, relate to events happening prior and
subsequent to handing over of the papers.
6). In the course of this disciplinary proceedings the Complainant
has filed Chief Affidavit and filed several other documents as
evidence and the same have been marked as exhibits as under:-
a). Ex-C1: C1 is the office copy of Legal Notice dated 14-10-
2014.
b). Ex-C2: C2 is the certified copy of order in I.A. 459/2015 in
O.S. 79/2015 on the file of XII Addl. Dist Sessions Judge,
Vijayawada.
c). Ex-C3: C3 is the certified copy of counter affidavit in I.A.
No. 459/2015 in O.S. No. 79/2015 on the file of XII Addl.
Dist Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
The Respondent’s Counsel was also given the opportunity to cross
examine the Complainant.
7). Heard both parties at length and both parties have also filed
their written submissions to support their oral arguments. From the
perusal of the records placed before this committee, it is found that
the Respondent indeed has access to several documents of the civil
cases pending which have been filed by the Complainant. This
5
committee finds that the Respondent could not have had access to
all the documents that he has filed before this committee unless
there has been some prior communication or meeting between the
Respondent and the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant has
also admitted that G.V.B Santosh Kumar is his friend and even on
perusal of the order passed by the XII Additional District Judge
Vijayawada, it is found that the Hon’ble Court has not dismissed the
I.A. on the ground that the Complainant herein has raised different
grounds in the Legal Notice dated 14-10-2014. Therefore, the
contention of the Complainant that contents of the Legal Notice are
detrimental to his Civil and Criminal proceedings is not proved.
In view of the above, this committee does not find prima facie
evidence against the Respondent of any professional misconduct.
As such, the C.C. is dismissed as the same is not proved.
Sd/- [Link] Reddy, Chairman
Sd/- Sanjeeva Rao Sirikonda, Member
Sd/- Linga Murthy, Member
Appendix of Evidence
ORAL
For the Complainant :
CW.1: [Link] Vijaya Prasad
For the Respondent : Nil.
DOCUMENTARY
For the Complainant :
Ex.C1:- Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.14.10.2014.
6
Ex.C2:- Certified copy of Order in [Link].459/2015 in
[Link].79/2015 on the file of XII [Link] Sessions
Judge, Vijayawada.
Ex.C3:- Certified copy of Counter Affidavit in
[Link].459/2015 in [Link].79/2015 on the file of XII
[Link].
For the Respondent : Nil.
([Link] Lakshmi)
Registrar, Disciplinary Committee.
