D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, V.M.KANADE, A.A.SAYED
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa – Respondent
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India framed Rule 49 under which there is a prohibition on an Advocate being a full time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he or she continues to practise. Upon taking such employment, an Advocate is required to intimate that fact to the Bar Council on whose rolls the name appears. Thereupon, such a person would cease to practise as an Advocate so long as he continues in employment. An exception was engrafted into Rule 49 as it was originally framed in regard to a Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any public corporation or body constituted by the State who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of the State Bar Council made under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) despite being a full time salaried employee. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa framed rules under which persons who are Law Officers of the Central Government or the Government of a State were excepted from the prohibition on an Advocate accepting full time salaried employment. O
Sushma Suri Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Narindra Chand Hem Raj Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, H.P.
Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of H.P.
Sharma Transport Represented by D.P. Sharma Vs. Government of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.