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

1963 Supreme(AP) 134

N.KUMARAYYA, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU, VENKATESAM
In Re: Sri A. Gurubasappa, Advocate Rayadrug – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS proceeding arises out of a complaint preferred by one M. Basappa (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) to the High Court alleging professional misconduct against Sri A. Gurubasappa (hereinafter referred to as we respondent), an Advocate practising at Rayadrug.

( 2 ) THE substance of the complaint is as follows the complainant filed O. S. No. 164 of 1958, on the tile of the Court of the District Munsif, Rayadrug, and engaged the. respondent as a Junior Advocate. A sum of Rs. 50. 00 was settled as fees for the respondent and it was paid. the respondent appeared for the complainant during the early stages of the suit; but when the Government was impleaded as the 3rd defendant, at the instance of defendants 1 and 2, he reported no instructions for the complainant without his knowledge and consent and filed a memo of appearance on behalf of the 3rd defendant and contested the suit against the complainant. It is further averred that we complainant had given a registration copy of a mortgage deed to the respondent for the purpose of filing it along with other documents in court, but that the respondents deliberately withheld that document.

( 3 ) BY


















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