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

1968 Supreme(SC) 1

C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, G. K. MITTER, J. M. SHELAT, K. N. WANCHOO, R. S. BACHAWAT
Mohindroo – Appellant
Versus
Bar Council Of Delhi – Respondent


Judgement

SHELAT. J.:- This appeal by certificate raises the question as to the scope of entries 77 and 78 in List l and entry 26 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

2. The question arises in the following manner:

3. On a complaint by the Subordinated Judge that the appellant, while taking inspection of the Court record in an arbitration matter pending before his Court, had mutilated the copy of a notice in that record by wilfully tearing a portion thereof, the District Judge, Delhi filed a report against the appellant before the Delhi State Bar Council for taking action under the Advocate (Act, 25 of 1961 hereinafter refereed to as the Act). The Disciplinary Committee of the said Council after hearing the appellant found him guilty of professional misconduct and ordered his suspension for one year under S. 35 (3) (c) of the Act. An appeal filed by the appellant under S. 37 before the Bar Council of India failed. Thereupon he filed an appeal against the said order under S. 38 in this Court. The appeal was placed for preliminary hearing and summarily rejected at that stage. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) for

























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