BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF

ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

Disciplinary Committee No. I

Dated this the 24th Day November of 2010

Present: Sri N.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Chairman

Sri Satyanarayana Kolli, Member
Sri A.Narasimha Rao, Member

***
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 4 OF 2010

Between:

Sri Kanuri Venkateswara Rao,

S/o Rama Rao, D.No.7-157, Kalanagar,
Kothapeta (M), E.G.Dist. ………Complainant

- And -

1. Sri Gundabattula Narayana Prasad,

Advocate, College Road,
Opp: Gowtami Priniting Press,
Kothapeta, E.G. Dist.

2. Sri A.Venkata Satya Prasad,

Advocate,
D.No.12-1-4/1, Near Black Bridge,
Amalapuram, E.G.Dist. ……….Respondents

***

The case is referred to the Disciplinary Committee No. I by the Bar

Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad U/Sec.35(1) of the Advocate

Act, 1961.

This case is coming on for consideration before the Disciplinary Committee

No. I and after giving notice to the Advocate- General under Section 35(2) of

Advocates Act, 1961 and after perusing the entire record and hearing both the

parties, the Committee made the following :

ORDER

The case of the complainant is that he is the resident of Kothapeta (v)

and he is doing business in the name and style of M/s Anjali Enterprises

1
and Sri Devi Chits & Finance business about six years back in which the 1st

respondent is the partner of the business along with other partners . His further

case is that he conducted business of Hero Honda Motor Cycle Scheme

and joined the subscribers in the scheme and subsequently disputes arose in

the business the 1st respondent collected the amounts unauthorizedly and

misused the funds and complainant closed the business and settled the

amounts to the subscribers who joined in the scheme. Later, about two years

back one Mr. Petta Satya Leela Surya Pratap, Nandyala Sitarama Raju and

others filed cases against the complainant on the file of Consumer Forum,

E.G.Dist., in which the complainant appeared and the 1st respondent was

engaged as Advocate at Rajahmundry and decrees were passed to a tune

of Rs. 4 lakhs . The further case of the complainant is that after making the

payment, he entertained a doubt as to why the subscribers filed cases

against him even though the amounts were settled and approached the

above named persons and enquired why they got filed cases against him

and on that Mr. P.Satya Leela Surya Pratap and others stated that they never

filed any cases against him more particularly 65/2006, 69/2006, 62/2006 and

further stated that they never engaged 2nd respondent for filing cases on their

behalf and never put their signatures on the complaints and vakalats filed at

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, E.G.Dist., Rajahmundry and they

never received any amount paid by him and similarly on that he got enquired

other persons and on making enquiry by the complainant to the aforesaid

persons and all the said persons categorically stated that they never engaged

any Advocate nor filed complaints and also received any amounts from him and

the 1st respondent , being the partner of the Firm, by taking particulars of the

records of the business and fabricated the records in collusion with the 2nd

respondent by forging the signatures of the aforesaid persons Hence, the

complainant was constrained to filed the present complaint.

2
 On receipt of the comments from the 1st respondent, the Bar Council of

A.P. has not taken any cognizance against the 1st respondent and rejected the

complaint against the 1st respondent and the matter was referred against

the 2nd respondent only as he has not filed comments to the complaint.

The 2nd respondent filed his objections after the matter referred to the

Committee, denying the allegations made in the complaint inter alia stating

that some of the subscribers of Sri Anjali Enterprises, Sri Geetha Motors &

Finance and Sri Devi Chits & Finance Hero Honda Schemes have approached

the 2nd respondent along with other relevant documents issued by the

complainant and other relevant documents issued by the complainant and

bunch of receipts issued by the complainant. The 1st respondent informed

that the 2nd respondent and the complainant induced him and the other

subscribers and thereby requested the 1st respondent to join the members as

subscribers in the said firms. The 1st respondent informed that on his request

the subscribers joined in the schemes being run by the complainant and further

the complainant failed to pay the amount that was collected by him as the

complainant failed to pay the amount that was collected and requested to file

case before the Consumer Forum. The 2nd respondent only agreed to prepare

the cases and to accept the vakalat only and further informed the 1st respondent

to engage another Advocate also to represent the cases before the Consumer

Forum. Basing on the documents produced by the subscribers the 2nd

respondent prepared the cases and the 1st respondent obtained the

signatures of all the petitioners in the respective cases on the petitions as well

as on the vakalats. The 2nd respondent accepted the vaklats in some cases

only. The signature on the vakalat and petition in O.P.No. 65/2006 as

Advocates does not belongs to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent

accepted the vakalat only in CC No. 61/2006, 62/2006, 63/2006.. The 2nd

respondent also stated that he is no way concerned with the allegations

against the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent further submitted that there is

3
no client and Advocate relation in between the complainant and himself and

prayed the Hon’ble Authority to dismiss the complaint.

The case is posted on 04-09-2010 for appearance of the parties and

adjourned to 03-10-2010. On 03-10-2010 a Memo was filed on behalf of the

complainant seeking withdrawal of the complaint and the matter was

adjourned to 20-11-2010 and thereafter to 24-11-2010. On that date, an

affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant inter alia stating that after

lodging the complaint, subsequently, the complainant realized that the

respondent has no involvement in the allegations made in the complaint and

accordingly the matter was settled with the respondent. The affidavit was filed

by the complainant on 03-10-2010 In the said affidavit, the complainant

clearly stated that there is no disputable issue in between the complainant

and he has no desire to pursue the matter any further.

The said affidavit was taken on record . While filing the affidavit, the

complainant also produced his pan card original evidencing his identity and

Committee has also perused the same. The Committee feels that in view of

the affidavit filed by the complainant, stating there is no disputable issue in

existence and also there is no desire on behalf of the complainant to

prosecute further in the matter, the compliant is liable to be dismissed. No

order as to costs.

Sd/- N.Dwarakanath Reddy , Chairman

Sd/- Kolli Satyanarayana, Member
Sd/- K.Vishwanath Reddy, Member.

Appendix of Evidence

OR A L

For the complainant :- - None -

For the Respondent :- - None -

4
 DOCUMENTARY

For the Complainant :- - Nil -

For the Respondent :- - Nil -

(N.Renuka)
Secretary, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh &
Registrar, Disciplinary Committee No.I

- - -