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

1975 Supreme(SC) 487

A.N.RAY, M.H.BEG, P.N.SHINGHAL, R.S.SARKARIA
L. D. Jaisinghani – Appellant
Versus
Naraindas N. Punjabi – Respondent


Advocates:
R.N.NATH, Sharad Manohar, V.N.GANPULE

JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:— The appellant is an Advocate against whom a complaint was made on 25th May, 1971 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra by the Respondent Naraindas M. Punjabi. As the complaint was not disposed of within six months of its receipt by the State Bar Council it was transferred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India Under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, 1961 for disposal.

2. The complainant alleged as follows :

He was the co-owner with two others of certain premises of which one of the tenants was M/s. Hindustan Electric and Radio Corporation. He, together with the other co-owners, had filed suits Nos. 840 of 1961 and 1040 of 1964 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the Corporation. These suits were off-shoots of a prior proceeding No. 4174 of 1960 in the Small Cause Court for the electment of the Corporation, which was dismissed on 10th March, 1961. S. C. Suit No. 840 of 1961 was, thereafter, filed, but, it was withdrawn on 19th September, 1963, with liberty to file a fresh suit. On or about 10th February, 1964, the Advocate concerned, L. D. Jaisinghani, took Rs.350/- from the complainant for filing the fresh suit in the Bombay City Civil Court













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