Back
Bar Council Of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
Kurapati Satyanarayana – Respondent
Key Points: - The State Bar Council's appeal under Section 38 is maintainable as per the judgment. (!) - Grave professional misconduct includes misappropriation of client money, constituting a breach of trust by an advocate. (!) (!) - The appropriate punishment for grave professional misconduct, given the severity, is removal from the roll of the Bar Council. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Bhan, J.-Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, for short "the State Bar Council", has filed this appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 39 of 1997 dated 28th March, 1999 by which the Bar Council of India has set aside the order passed by the State Council removing the name of Kurapati Satyanarayana, hereinafter referred to "the Delinquent", from the roll of the State Bar Council as he was found guilty of grave professional misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an advocate.
2. O.S. No. 1624 of 1991 was filed by Sri Gutta Nagabhushanam, hereinafter referred to "the de-facto complainant", on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru through the delinquent advocate. The said suit having been decreed, Execution Petition No. 112 of 1995 was instituted for realisation of the decretal amount. Delinquent was engaged as the counsel for the de-facto complainant in the execution proceedings as well. The Delinquent received a total sum of Rs. 14,600/- on various dates in the execution proceedings but did not make payment of the same to the de-facto complainant. On 18th October, 1996
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
