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

1935 Supreme(All) 101

In Re: An Advocate – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Thom, J. - On January 24, 1934, notice was ordered by this Court to go to Mr. O. to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct.

2. For some reasons or other notice did not go to Mr. C. but the matter of the conduct was referred for enquiry to the Bar Council. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointed a Committee consisting of Mr. P.L. Banerji, Dr. N.C. Vaish and Mr. Murli Manohar, to enquire into Mr. C's conduct. Mr. C's conduct in connection with a certain case had been adversely commented on by the learned Judge who directed that notice should go to him on January 24, 1934.

3. The facts may be briefly stated. They are fully set out in the report of the Bar Council Committee. Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a citizen of Cawnpore died upon November 23, 1932. After his death an application for letters of administration with a copy of the will of the deceased, dated November 20, 1932, was made on May 2, 1933, in the High Court by Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a son of the deceased. One Mrs. Peters, who, it appears, had nursed Mr. Noronha through the long illness that preceded his death entered a caveat upon July 17, 1933. Mrs. Peters opposed the grant of letters of

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