LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     10 October 2009

ADVOCATES ACT CASE LAWS

 

ADVOCATES ACT CASE LAWS----
1)ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-35-PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY APRACTING ADVOCATE-APPELLANT A PRACTCING ADVOCATE WAS REPERESENTING THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO THE RESPONDENT-THAT THE CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPROMISE-AFTER THE DECISION OF THAT CASE THE APPELLANT/ADVOCATE TOOK A HAND LOAN OF RS.3000/- FROM THE RESPONDENT AND THE APPELLANT ALSO GAVE RESPONDENT A POST DATED CHEQUE AS A  MEASURE OF PAMENT –BUT THE CHEQUE WAS BOUNCED-RESPONDENT THEN FILED APPLICATION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT –THE APPELLANT WHILE TAKING A HAND LOAN WAS NOT ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE-HE WAS ACTING ONLY AS A NEEDY PERSON AND THE RESPONDENT AS A CREDITOR-HENCE THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE GUILTY OF ANY PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT-FURTHER, BY ORDER OF THIS COURT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED RS.3000/- IN THE REGISTRY-HE IS LIABLE TO PAY RS.1000/- MORE AS A COST TO THE RESPONDENT –PUNISHMENT SET ASIDE AND COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 119.]
2]
A] ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-35-PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OR OTHER MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF ADVOCATE-SCOPE OF- RESPONDENT WAS EARLIER AN ADVOCATE-SELECTED AS A JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-HE THEREFORE ,GOT HIS LICENCE TO PRACTISE SUSPENDED- AFTER SOME  YEARS WHILE IN JUDICIAL SERVICE HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR TAKING OF BRIBE AND ULTIMATELY DISMISSED FROM SEVICE-HE THUS APPLIED TO BAR COUNCIL TO PERMIT HIM TO RESUME HIS PRACTICE AS AN ADVOCATE AND WAS ALLOWED- SOME OTHER ADVOCATES MADE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM THAT HE WAS DISMISSED FOR OFFENCE OF BRIBERY HE SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTCE AND ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM U/S 35 OF THE ACT FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – IT IS N OT THE CASE OF APPELLANTS THAT AFTER RESUMPTION OF PRACTICE RESPONDENT HAD COMMITED ANY MISSCONDUCT AS AN ADVOCATE- FOR HIS PAST DELIQUENCY HE WAS PUNISHED- PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CANNOT BE COMMITTED BY ANY ONE WHO IS NOT PRACTISING THE PROFESSION OF LAW BEING AN ADVOCATE ON ROLL OF BAR COUNCIL-IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA THAT NO CASE OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF RESPONENT ADVOCATE IS PROVED UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED.
B]  WORDS AND PHRASES- EXPRESSION “ OTHER MOSCONDUCT” IN SEC.35[1] OF ADVOCATES ACT,1961- MEANING AND SCOPE-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT” AND “OTHER MISCONDUCT”-“OTHER MISCONDUCT” WOULD INCLUDE MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY ADVOCATE NOT IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROFESSIONAL BUT IS ANY OTHER CAPACITY.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 119.]
CASES REFFERED – AIR 1956 SC 102, AIR 1958 AP 209
3] LEGAL PRIFESSION – NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF- LEGAL PROFESSION IS A NOBEL ONE HAVING HIGH TRADIIONS-ANY MEMBER OF THE PROFESSION FALLING FROM SUCH STADARADS DESERVES PUNISHMENT COMMENSURATE WITH GRAVITY OF MISCONDUCT.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 354.]
4] ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-44- ADVOCATE FOUND GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND SUSPENDED FROM ORACTICE FOR 3 YEARS- SUCH ADVOCATE PRACTSING DYRING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION OF PRACTICE UNDER DIFFERENT NAME- BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, ON APPEAL, BY COMPLAINT AWARDING PUNISHMENT OF SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE FOR 3 YEARS –GUILTY ADVOCATE PREFFERING REVIEW PETITION BEFORE B.C.I. OF SUSPENSION FOR 3 YEARS AND RESTORING ORDER OF ADMONITION PASSED BY STATE BAR COUNCIL-NOT SUSTAINABLE-PUNISHMENT OF SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE FOR 3 YEARS RESTORED.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 472.]
 
       
 


Learning

 3 Replies

Anil Agrawal (Retired)     14 October 2009

 The High Court says he is the Managing Partner. The person says he is a sleeping partner though he enters into agreements, contracts on behalf of the firm, signs cheques, issues appointment  and termination letters. He is an advocate. 

This is India.

ramchandrasingh (director)     17 October 2009

no i want to know more about 494 ipc

G.H. SUBBU (Advocate)     29 October 2009

Thanks a lot for giving valuble information


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register