Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :B.J.DIVAN, M.P.THAKKAR
PRAGJIBHAI KESURBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Petition 1012 of 1972
Decided On : 08/14/1974
Bombay Pleaders Act of 1920 – Section 36 – Advocates Act of 1961 – Section 55 and 56 – Legal Practitioners Act 1879 – Petitioner Patel was practising as a Pleader at Sinor in Baroda District – It appears that one a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to learned District Judge of Baroda under sec. 36 of Pleaders Act – In pursuance of report submitted by the learned District Judge matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Application – By an order Division Bench came to conclusion that petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that he was not a fit person to be retained on the roll of Pleaders – Accordingly he was removed from practice and it was directed that he should surrender his Sanad – Order was passed on petitioner appears to have felt contrite and to have reformed himself – Though he was till then practising as a Pleader he joined the office of Shri Kantilal Ambalal Joshi an advocate practising at Rajpipla as a Clerk. For about last five years the petitioner had been working for advocate Shri Joshi in his capacity as a Clerk affidavit sworn by Shri Joshi on shows that petitioner has attended to the legal affairs entrusted to him to the entire satisfaction of Shri Joshi and that petitioner has been found to be honest upright and sincere in his discharge of duties – Held, Powers exercisable by High Court have been saved under this provision notwithstanding repeal namely powers which were enjoyed by High Court In exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction when the aforesaid two Acts were in force – Importance of the expression continue to enjoy same rights and be subject to disciplinary jurisdiction of the same authority cannot be over-emphasized for it clearly shows that rights hitherto enjoyed by him were in terms kept alive albeit subject to obligations to which he was subject. There is no manner of doubt therefore that powers of superintendence exercisable by High Court in the context of the Legal Practitioners Act and Bombay Pleaders Act are not affected by any provision contained in Advocates Act particularly having regard to clear language employed by the Legislature an sec. 55 of Advocates Act stands to reason for with regard to persons who were previously practising under the Bombay Pleaders Act and Legal Practitioners Act authorities constituted under Advocates Act would have no jurisdiction hitherto enjoyed by High Court in exercise of its general powers of superintendence would continue to govern persons practising as pleaders or Vakils in pursuance of transitional provisions embodied in Chapter VII of Advocates Act and more particularly sec. 55 of said Act – High Court therefore continues to possess same powers as hitherto namely powers to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction in appropriate cases 85 also the concomitant power to reinstate in appropriate cases – Order accordingly.
( 1 ) THE question which confronts the Court is whether a pleader enrolled under the Bombay Pleaders Act of 1920 hereafter called the Pleaders Act who has been removed from practice can be reinstated under the general powers of superintendence exercisable by the High Court subsequent to the enforcement of the Advocates Act of 1961.
( 2 ) A few facts require to be mentioned in order to understand the point at issue. The petitioner Pragjibhai Kasturbhai Patel was practising as a Pleader at Sinor in the Baroda District. It appears that one Mavjibhai Govindbhai a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to the learned District Judge of Baroda under sec. 36 of the Pleaders Act. In pursuance of the report submitted by the learned District Judge the matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Application No. 293 of 1965. By an order dated March 8 1966 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that he was not a fit person to be retained on the roll of Pleaders. Accordingly he was removed from practice and it was directed that he should surrender his Sanad. This order was passed on March 8 1966 The petitioner appears to have felt contrite and to have reformed himself. Though he was till then practising as a Pleader he joined the office of Shri Kantilal Ambalal Joshi an advocate practising at Rajpipla as a Clerk. For about last five years the petitioner had been working for advocate Shri Joshi in his capacity as a Clerk. The affidavit sworn by Shri Joshi on 12th April 1972 shows that the petitioner has attended to the legal affairs entrusted to him to the entire satisfaction of Shri Joshi and that the petitioner has been found to be honest upright and sincere in his the discharge of duties. In the course of his work as a Clerk attached to a senior advocate like Shri Joshi large sums of money came to be entrusted to him and Shri Joshi declares on solemn affirmation that the petitioner has scrupulously accounted for all the monies entrusted to him and that he has been quite diligent and industrious in his work. This is what Shri Joshi has to say in his affidavit; He has done utmost to make amends for his previous misconduct and conducted himself honorably during the last years since he came in contact with me. I sincerely believe that he would justify clemency that may be shown to him and will act with integrity and honour and he deserves to be admitted to the rank of pleaders. Substantially to the same effect is the affidavit of advocate Shri Mahendrasinh Umengsinhji Mahida of Rajpipla. The petitioner has been working for Shri Mahida for the last five years. Initially the petitioner had joined the office of advocate Shri Prahladbhai Pandya who died about 2 years back. Thereafter he joined the office of Shri Mahida. Shri Mahida has also expressed the opinion that the petitioner was found to be upright honest and sincere and has discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of Shri Mahida. He has also stated that in the course of his duties the petitioner was entrusted with large amounts and that the petitioner has been found to be honest in his dealings diligent in his work and industrious. Shri Mahida has also expressed the opinion that if clemency is shown to the petitioner he would justify the trust reposed in him and that he deserves to be reinstated. He has expressed a high opinion about the integrity and honesty of the petitioner. His affidavit is supported by the affidavit of Shri Umenginhji Dolatsinhji Mahida who has also made similar statements in regard to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred this application for reinstatement supported by the aforesaid three affidavits.
( 3 ) NOW ordinarily in order to ascertain the suitability of the petitioner at the present moment we would have called for the opinion of the learned District Judge of the concerned district. In the present case however having
SupremeToday
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
