Back
Supreme Court Of India
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.
PHOOL CHANDRA SINGH- Appellant
Versus
LAXMI PRASAD AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Civil Appeal No .... of 2005 (D. No. 19936 of 2004),
Decided on February 4, 2005
Advocates Act, 1961 Sections 48AA, 44, 37 and 36B- Review of order of Bar Council of India (BCI) - Plea that the State Bar Council had lost jurisdiction to decide the case on expiry of the period of one year under Section 36-B(1) of the Act- However, the appellate order of BCI not reflected the plea having been pressed for decision before the Bar Council of India- The appellant stated that he would seek a review of the order of BCI on that ground- Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move a review petition before the Bar Council of India.. [Para 1]
ORDER
1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the State Bar Council had lost jurisdiction to decide the case on expiry of the period of one year under Section 36-B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, the appellate order of the Bar Council of India does not reflect the plea having been taken and pressed for decision before the Bar Council of India. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant would be advised to seek a review of the order of the Bar Council of India on that ground.
2. We record the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant and dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to move a review petition before the Bar Council of India.
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
