SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 129

R.P.SETHI, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Bal Dev Singh Dhingra – Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal Gupta – Respondent


Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has brought in challenge the order passed by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India in a transferred case whereunder Res­pondent No. 1 advocate was exonerated of the charge of misconduct levelled against him by the appellant-complainants. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to these proceedings.

Background Facts:

2. Respondent No. 1 was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana under the provisions of the Act in 1963 and he start­ed his practice as an advocate at Faridkot in the Punjab State. Subse­quently, he was selected as a judicial officer by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and he joined judicial service in the year 1965 and got his license to practise suspended. In the year 1972 Respondent No. 1 was posted as Judicial Magistrate-cum-Sub-Judge 1st Class at Samrala in Ludhiana District of Punjab State. During his tenure, complaints of bribery and commission of other misconduct were made against him by several persons to the High Court of Punj










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top