According to the details of the case, Tribbovanpalsinh R Parmar, a retired government official living in Ahmedabad, had hired Kishor N Sojitra, then practising in Rajkot, for a case through an acquaintance almost a decade ago.

In 2003, Sojitra had asked Parmar to lend him Rs 5.51 lakh since he did not have money. Parmar lent him money in good faith. As security, Sojitra issued six cheques in Parmar’s name. The cheques bounced as there was no money in the lawyer’s account.

Subsequently, Parmar served a notice to Sojitra under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. When Sojitra still did not pay back the amount, Parmar filed six criminal cases against him. Court summons were sent to him, but he did not reply. He, moreover, allegedly threatened his client with “dire consequences.”

Afterwards, however, Sojitra proposed a compromise and “sold” a plot on an industrial land at Veraval village in Kotada Songhani taluka to Parmar for Rs 6.26 lakh. Sojitra even executed a possession receipt (satakhat) and the Power of Attorney.

It was agreed that Parmar would pay Sojitra the remaining amount of Rs 75,000 after 90 days. In response, the criminal complaints were also withdrawn against Sojitra.

Though, when Parmar went to plot along with some hired labourers to fence it, a man came and said that the land belonged to him and had never sold it to anyone.

On inquiring about the same, Sojitra gave an ‘evasive reply.’

Parmar then approached the Bar Council, asking it to take disciplinary action against the lawyer. However, the Council declined to hear the matter. Parmar, then, filed a revision petition before the Council, which was accepted and directed to the disciplinary committee.

Sojitra, however, told the committee that he had compromised with his client, and asked that he be given 90 days to return the money. He then sent the committee a letter saying that he had compromised with his client and paid him part of the amount in the presence of an arbitrator. The remaining amount, he said, would be paid later.

After a month, Sojitra sent another letter to the committee stating that it had no say in the matter since it pertained to the Negotiable Instrument Act. Sojitra even denied that Parmar was his client ever.

Sojitra never turned before the Committee, though Parmar submitted his evidence after he was examined on oath.

Following this, the committee held three hearings on the matter. On the first two hearings, Sojitra did not appear. Though, on the third hearing, the committee received a letter from Sojitra along with a copy of the ‘compromise’ he had with Parmar. The copy did not contain Parmar’s signature.

At a subsequent hearing, Parmar told the committee that the lawyer had not paid back the money, and had submitted the copy of the compromise without his consent.

In view of all this, the disciplinary committee has suspended Sojitra from practising in any court of law in the country for 10 years.