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

1954 Supreme(SC) 110

B.K.MUKHERJEE, GHULAM HASAN, S.R.DASS, VIVIAN BOSE
President Of India – Appellant
Versus
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-general Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
G.M.JOSHI, M.C.SETALVAD, P.G.COKHALE

Judgment

BOSE, J.: This matter arises out of a summons issued to Mr. G, a Senior Advocate of this Court, under Order IV, Rule 30, of the SC Rules, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.

2. Mr. G was called to the Bar in England and was later enrolled as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court. He is also an Advocate of this Court. On 20-12-1952 he entered into an agreement with a client whereby the client undertook to pay him 50 per cent, of any recoveries he might make in the legal proceedings in respect of which he was engaged. On this being reported to the High Court the matter was referred to the Bombay Bar Council and was investigated by three of its members under section 11 (1) of the Bar Council Act. They recorded their opinion that this amounted to professional misconduct.

The High Court agreed and suspended Mr. G from practice as an Advocate of the Bombay High Court for six months. The learned Judges considered that they had no power to affect his position as an Advocate of this Court, so directed that a copy of their judgment be submitted to this Court to enable this Court to take such action on it as it thought fit. Acting on this report this Co






































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