A lawyer today failed in his appeal at the Federal Court to set aside the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors disciplinary board to strike him off from the rolls of the Malaysian Bar for misconduct.   

A five-member panel led by Court of Appeal President Md Raus Shariff unanimously dismissed B Kasturi Kesveren’s appeal after ruling that the disciplinary board’s decision to strike him off from the rolls was correct.  

Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin sat with Federal Court judges Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop and Hasan Lah.

A complaint against Kasturi Kesveren was lodged with the Bar Council, which referred the matter to the disciplinary board and an inquiry was convened.

On May 2010, the disciplinary board struck Kasturi Kesveren off the rolls after finding him guilty of misconduct.

Best Fair Promotion Sdn Bhd lodged the complaint against Kasturi Kesveren who claimed that he was representing Tai Nam Sin and Sons Realty Limited, the owner of a 3.6 hectare piece of land in the Mukim of Kajang, Ulu Langat District, Selangor.  

Best Fair Promotion claimed that they had paid a deposit of RM750,000 to Kasturi Kesveren’s law firm to purchase the land, valued at RM7.5 million.

After the company paid the money, it found out that the land was not for sale and Tai Nam Sin had not appointed Kasturi Kesveren as their lawyer.

The disciplinary board found Kasturi Kesveren to have paid the RM750,000 to an unauthorised third party.  

Kasturi Kesveren was unsuccessful in his appeals to the Ipoh High Court and Appeals Court which had on Oct 14, 2010, and April 5 last year, respectively, dismissed his appeals.

The five-member panel today also dismissed Kasturi Kesveren’s preliminary objection that the Bar Council and disciplinary board did not have the right to oppose his appeal as he said the company has withdrawn the complaint against him after he had paid RM450,000 to the company as a settlement sum.

However, both the Bar Council and the disciplinary board maintained that they can appear, intervene and oppose the appeal by virtue of Section 103(E)(8) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) which permitted them to do so.  

- Bernama