Jahanvi Agarwal
The UP-Bar Council has banned a lawyer’s license for a term of five years on the grounds that the lawyer received money in his personal bank account from one of the mediation’s parties while serving as a mediator.
On October 21, 2022, the complainant, Smt. Geeta Sahu submitted a complaint along with her affidavit on the grounds that her son, Himanshu Gupta, wed Rini Sahu in 2016. After some time, there is a marital argument between the couple and other family members.
According to the allegations, the opposing party, Advocate Nitin Saxena, is related to the complainant through his or her mother and interfered in the complainant’s family matters improperly and needlessly.
According to the complaint, Nitin Saxena also works on obtaining land in the city, as Rini Sahu informed the complainant’s son, who then requested land in Allahabad from Advocate Saxena.
After some time, Nitin Saxena allegedly provided Himanshu with a plot of property and requested that he pay the land’s purchase price of Rs 35 lakh into the owner’s account. Himanshu donated Rs 2 lakh in cash in addition to transferring Rs 7 lakh to Sashwat’s account and Rs 2.5 lakh to Nitin Saxena’s account upon repeated requests.
According to the complaint, Advocate Saxena requested Rini to file a dowry and domestic abuse case when the remaining amount was not made.
The opposing party was practicing for the Judicial Services Exam at the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad while the complainant’s son received a job offer. He further denied having received money from Himanshu.
The allegations presented by both parties in the current complaint were thoroughly reviewed by the disciplinary body. They said that the bank statement demonstrates unequivocally that the complainant’s son Kumar sent money in various sums and at various times to Nitin’s account.
The opposing side acknowledged that he served as the mediator in order to settle the conflict between Rini Sahu and Himanshu Kumar. Regarding the transactions that took place in his account, the opposing party made no explanations.
He made no mention of the reason he received money from Himanshu Kumar. He also didn’t dispute that the account, into which the funds were sent, wasn’t his.
The opposite party also did not say anything about the allegation of threatening the complainant’s son in court premises and did not rebut this allegation.