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

1964 Supreme(MP) 31

P.V.DIXIT, K.L.PANDEY
BADRI PRASAD SADASHIVRAO – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, G. R. KALE – Respondent


DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 392 and from 404 to 416, all of 1963,

( 2 ) THE petitioners in all these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were until lately appearing for parties in cases in the subordinate courts at Indore after obtaining general powers of attorney from parties, and in some cases special equivalent Citation: powers of attorney. In July 1963 a complaint was received by the District Judge of indore from the Bar Association, Indore, stating that the petitioner Badri Prasad, in M. P. No. 329 of 1963, and other persons, under the cover of general powers of attorney and also in some cases special powers of attorney, were appearing for parties in cases and practising as legal practitioners for them, and that they also attired themselves as lawyers. Thereupon the learned District Judge held an inquiry into the matter. He directed all the petitioners to furnish him a list of cases in which they were appearing in the various subordinate courts as recognised agents. On the basis of the information supplied by the petitioners, the learned District judge found that the petitioner in each case had obtained a nu















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