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

1970 Supreme(SC) 347

M. HIDAYATULLAH, G. K. MITTER, A. N. RAY
O. N. Mohindroo: Supreme Court Bar Association – Appellant
Versus
District Judge, Delhi – Respondent


Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- The appellant in these two appeals is an advocate of this Court, who on complaint by the District Judge, Delhi, 29 February, 1964, to the Bar Council of the State of Delhi, was held guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for a year by the disciplinary committee of the said Bar Council. He appealed to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Sec. 37 of the Advocates Act. The appeal was dismissed. His appeal to this Court under Sec. 38 of the Act was dismissed summarily at the preliminary hearing. The charge against him was that while inspecting a judicial record in the company of Mr. Kuldip Singh Advocate, he tore out 2 pieces of paper from an Exhibit (C-I). The pieces were thrown by him on the ground. The clerk-in-charge reported the incident to the District Judge and the complaint followed.

2. The suit, record of which was being inspected, arose in the following circumstances. On February 6, 1963 Mr. Anant Ram Whig, an advocate, sent a notice on behalf of one Sarin to a certain Ramlal Hans and his wife claiming a sum of Rs. 4370/- as reward for the success of their daughter at an examination including tuitio
























































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