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.