PART - II (10 MAJOR JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)INDEX SLNO | NAME OFTHE PARTIES | PARTICULARS OF THE PAGE NO. CASE Of [N.G.Dastane Civil Appeal No. 3543/2001 | 1-3 AND Shrikanth S. Shinde & Others (2. | Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh | Civil Appeal No. 3412/2001 | 4-6 AND Kurapati Satya Narayana 03, | Vinay Kumar Civil Leave Pet 78 ‘AND 1253/2001, State Of Uttar Pradesh (04. | Harish Chandra Tiwari Civil Appeal No. 20072000 940 ‘AND Balu 05. [RD. Saxena Civil Appeal No. 1938/2000 ‘| 11-13 AND Balaram Prasad Sharma 06. | Vikas DeshPande Givil Appeal No. 4003/2001 | 14-18 AND Bar Council Of india & Others (07. | Jaipur Vikas Pradhi Karan Civil Appeal No. 5099/2002 | 19-21 AND Sri, Ashok Kumar Chowdary & Others 08. | Narain Pandey Givi Appeal No. 6363/2004 | 22-28 AND Pannalal Pandey 09. | OP Sharma & Others Criminal Appeal No’s 5-27 AND 1108-1115/2004 High Court Of Punjab & Haryana 70, | Dhanraj Singh Chowdary Civil Appeal No. 2293/2005 | 28-31 AND with Nathulal Vishwa Karma Civil Appeal No. 4484/2005Beroné THe WON'BLE SUPREME Count OF INDIA. Cust Appeal No. 3543 /eo0t Beracen ae Dactare amen en easel Ape wun” AND ili t Nediwd Bie 0 CC muraiiors Frets OF oe case The petané sou an Ancurlaal Ali who has fpreviusly worked a1 an Aiton In UNE Cuserlly he tt Raled A Complaint” had been fled tard agasral Accused of the Offree of ie ty yf cay aoe The Deferdanls afported Toso 0) Mrecates to te grocedings fo the ial uk Thay axe ddvcate Swi. Ahirde, Ond his Cotlegue” Sot kulkam? both pro * . the cli lagen fe thd gant predeg i (pee pet | Ever oat eos fre howe, the seasons for the cose of pprofeuional Medina! with the Nepeabedl Adjssneerd Of the pnoceedings. 30-07- 1993, Baia te ppasted by dia! Maglnate for Ge Crows. Georrination. Bat on-this dale, all the bbtneses | tore nok present, So the cetonel Advocate of Respondents Sought fran f He sugual eons ef lends oe on 23-08- 1993, On this doy the Appel and all other tsitnestes wow muent tr the Court fon the Cnoss- Gxaminatton. But both the Respondent Advocates had seasons fon the Adfournments, On 13-09-1993, Reypordert Sought fon Adfousernent On Vision Reason Appellant Coursel pe Dyck ct drop pm Adfwanmert. The Jacttal Maptbale again d the Case ard |jpast to 16-o- 1993. The Cose was again Adfowsned to 20-I- 1993. Gn 0-0-1993 Unfor > dadtetal Magitrae Afowrned te Case +> by-12- 1993, not wen any fr te on fox absence of Co. Advocate. (4)The Appullant happened to ee Finsh Aut Respondent *Fomsbly and Fuaaty “enguing "a Maer before another Cont Situated in Sarre butte Wadi pied and eich Cauad hire b the |Gomplainé agate both Respondents before the Slate Bax Couret! of | | Maharashtra. | | Tesues | bathethor taking Adfenment by Advocate amounl bs prsfestonal | (corduck2 q v 4 he * mn 0 de to ne aa Ajowrrmnd amour bs distretion On 3. bihether Complainants Cage esas affcte by the act of Abvcate ? Funes. State Bar Counetl that mt csithout |Subitaree . The Wate Ba a que pera Sp | the Reppordents. The Ruvtion ppetion exe pee at by Ampere | Pd fang toe Ba Cont of Mahonaskira cons sprficly foie fn pag Snpegned Ruolution. | Aavocate abating the proce of the Ghont 16 Gly of Mrnclact Seing Afar depot He Exominaction of blttnes who an promt th Gok even uatthout” Nakig Other axsangunands for taamining Such wwitrenes tt dterdion On Avoentes oy Hy Court as Hak cashulod Cote Mut Haxastment and Mandi the biflnesses. Sich dtercton if nupeated wteuld amount to the ofastonal Mucndact 04 the cats Concord | | | | iveenen As the Nrscordluct alteged th the yoo" taq3- 1994, the end of Juste demand that divgplnoy Committee of Box Count of Trdta Should row deal estth fatnard and ppltont ould Stond sufooud to Bar Council Of Sndta Under dtelton 36 Of the (2)Advoeates Ack, 1961. | The Court breech the Dis | Grnmttlee bs adlopt stich pe ne au nae fa the I, Case fr actondance with dow and iratpht “of Louk made | |bove. | | Thettes of Fikbuster tf adapted by an Advocate tr also | Caled 04 ppnafustonal Mitconduck Under Sutin 25 of the | Advocates Act, 1961BerorE THE HON’BLE SUPREME CouRT OF INDIA Civil sppral No. 3412/2001, Between’ Fax Council of sdrdhna Pradesh coeeeenenee = APPELLANT: | AND Fuvap datya Klstayana pte toe rme| | | |_Thers oF We nse The Bor Gunel of dhdha Prodtsh fas | fed tie Appeal paul the Oroler of Daegplir Gonmittee of bax | Counetl of neta in Druyplnany Conriee Appeal slo. a9hen1 doled 28 = mck 1999 by Which Bar Council of tndta has Rt aside the fal by Bax unl of drehra Radlsh emer te Name of ing chelate jel pops el Guneil as nd Gly of guave profesional Muconduct - Tn the alchesge of hit duties as an Pate. Orspnal duit no. w2u/i9a) uns filed by Sy. Gutla (defacto mplinant) On the fie of Diubnick Mort? Magistrate, kit Godevard Dishtel, thou alelgact Advocate. The laid dutt being been Execution Petition NE te/1995 lias tuted for cuabratir! of the ceereased amount. Debrguet Advocate toay engaged as Cuniel fr Defacto Gmplaivart tn fee > fy 4 we the beinguet bcoale (h- datya xecetvel a total dum of 3 Myéool- Ri On various tes in the canton duoce but did not make the Jame do the Defacto rant fied a Complaint a ee ditional Drcbtel Mansi ther paned the Follewing Order Decree thidex Sy. he jana Portued ths Ent Record Te Memo filed by the Detree Holder me with Srigrat Reape by the Tats by dh it apa |a {Adele date 2-4-1996 and the Gy y (aleuladion Memo lated | hich is [tee 1996 pupa Gut. k. dodge Noxoyara Advocate ushich is) ed | nol gd by a ard faith ht Conpbint avd | |dountol be Submitted fo te de Baw Coanetl of Aralbna. | (Pradah in Mh Cound porta to Horible dishiet and | Sustons Fee, hlul 1, Eleore fob acevo ae ath Crecg dl, Den ler tn Grant Cou: «Complaint filed by Defato Cmplotrant | aling eat mph iL rege dat phan’ | | dotuments woul se to Box Gunetl of Podhoa. pradesh | [tr tyke pret | 7 “the Habe bres Commitee offer | examining he Mitmates produced by Compldinart Cone. 40 | lector what dlingpient fool sktoned a total tum Pres ing ard defacto Gooplinant on dffount- | ae 474. anth him. | the Dulinguenl prafocted an before. she Displnory Committee q fee of a Box Couretl af ed the ! Hale Bor Coanet| but Come to te relat tat I git fas nol Committed “4 Grebe Mucordt A thou” Might be Lime Ngigence Sr he pork thtch did nof bwole nh Moxal Towpt fe. Teves 1 ther the Baperelind. Atrcabe fal b bask the deertal amount cto be clatmant- a et 2. lhether the Rapordent a daly af profesional Mucordaet 2 Finipintas Or Vouthying he Mosh of Case, the Japyeme Cosel Four te Order of bax Caunetl Of Srolfa te Unuutafrable. Ie & eid tat the Diesplnory Gommitte of Bo Gunctl of Srdia halhtch fe Highut faely fo Menton the digal prapeen in te (5)(Guiy The au dil mit Bake te pant jac 7" Cepndfd ed Ae gh ofor fis poonal reel fox |twadment and that uch th fritaneed do take 1 dere | ee ee. LS a Peliguanl bende Mt Guiky of (peptone! Merc Jvoaentenr. Causl Chewed ak Cori of dilpert whe arin fhe ard tan Abecate. Ayer | te ahi refesoral. Prconduck, he | tl ard be Eee of Bot sould be Fret ol wey 1 a the order faut Ban Couneil of India and % Drugptrang Connie of Al Box del Prcrdigly Seprome Caste dtr the tonal of he name fom sell ¢ Bae Conc of ta “the ipalent ‘Sad be ented to the Cah of yal bch aprons Gok cus as % 5000/- ©Berore tHe How're —uprene Cour _OF_ INDIA | Civit Leave, Petition No. 1253/2001 | Between | —_—_ | Vay Rams PevirioneR. | | Late of Ut (prodeh ee Responoenr: | Facts oF THe case [Frcs oF THe Case Hoag famon hoe ofl sufovee as | led a tt alin Ho te abit Tira sin | | hie chant . The Peitioner aggiend by he Ordeu posed by Die | Jand cfrastons ge. Vananast dabed 13-12-2001 transferrin Number. | of Criminal “Coiba fy ctypotal ty the Additional Dubuiell ond cfsstons Jia the petitioner Advocate 2fmesercting the Aeeesed! ne they al boyfie Cases, Fk a ab fpxttion gh Gaetan cf pasig ageyen The feito Poca, ded not duclased the capes lbich reverted the i pposons fiom el liobh f lmisued os a ome Meored in the pdttion eshich oe repo the igre the Ker tin. & ve re Cases, H Spudy bial ¥ acceased he been transfirred Gnd “ot onder hay be fosed ina Casual Manner. “the bit ettlon esos limited by te sh Courd eae t ~ an Mvacete had ‘no Jus dard? to iy of ode by any of ie [petition Issues |. Muhethr the petitimer Advocate bas dows Mandi to challenge tthe daly of Bre 4 ewoy of bit petition 2 ()12 Whether a Advocate el, 196) entitles an Advocate 40 Substitute | himuup fox he clent-2 | 3. bihethor the ttn esas fila in (publ Snborest.2 | Finpines. The dott pele eas ditmtind Ligh oul te i! te petition being an Advocate has no ‘focus’ Sandi to Atoll Ugatly of the Ofer b blag of it ptin | the petitioner Advocate t not Obliged to Ph the bi tidon on bebyf” af the chunks elim 20 of He | Advocate et, 196) Only enditles “on Advocate L pnachia poe Jf daw ard rok to abut himself! ov his clent: | the petlioner bad al fed te pobiton fr ppoble. Snberel [ard did rat cre he neuralones alieh pravrted the ‘ff on fom afpno aching the Cutt. If the Cose tt fd (prble towt the ae can “exerette the bit Zortdtehion of the Instance i a thid oy ony. he buhen tf Shocon that the eae 0 economt beadvantnged ition rable” bo Jo nt (piton Doseseur the Sune Coast held Hat tre fing of the hit pliton ft his Bon name bet rok a sport of the nofasiona! Obligation of Hhe Udvondte. The me sas utp dhumiusng eorit ton holdig te (petitioner te Boks lard? aaith & the Steond Jesse, Seclion 3 of Advocates fet, 196) a ils en Advocate th practice te rprofaston of lowe and not ubeltate fine. spr hs cent: The Saprume Cou heed tat tore uss no Merit: in ‘Be spuiton which fe acral demisted. (3)| | _Berone THe HON'BLE —SuPREMe _CouRT OF INDIA | | wil Upped lo, 200 /2000 | Between Hasith Chandra Thon? Au Mp | Frets _OF mie Cros. Vawith Chondua Thar’, He Appellant hese in was teva a an ovate uth the Bow Count of dole of hax pradesh 1983, ait tn Ue Count at dalakinpot Dishicd. Reypordint Claimant fox Compensation. Commitee had oleciled Hol th Di [Bee / be be dapeided by slat Hg the Appellant esithcraw Ike amount aud fy ed fnformn him long. afte afl bilan the clint oted by satire te ape [from “he Aaroate he Lodged a eee Bas Council of date: The apd hs ply edt Hal the ered cn eutthdraun from te Curt, bub he ad eens stelaxned “Be amount b Clent ofa edly Fis soho Hater He Complatnand anc preted noo by boot Cuned xd Prd by vik af lin 26 6) Advocates Ack, 161 H found thal ffidoett purtoled to aww been Scorn f Fe Bets 4 a oe pinay ocdts afer tabs [Be che Aad fatlal maka the irgrant to Reyperdint, eske on slchoal sp a bes mesg as beer” Magppoopainted by Appellant an cTtsve I. bulhether the amourd esttbanon Adverts he ia ppl ew yell Ot gala (9) cone nena --- RESPONDENT.deducting iy Fee ard Expenes? | [2 lkether the plant Abbocate had fesnthed accourt a sured ape Srupal of te above titehaun arcurt Respect | 3 Moar uch act of Appian Advocate amourh -b the (poten Other Mivoorduct- 2 thee “Be Ha affaattodon of tte cnt ameurt ty Buoth of | eas | Fiupings. de te chasdy Ohoued that the Mindi “4 of te bp | Gmonitee that he Avoca fay euithebrausn he fe of z pew and has not bb the frank fm than ie ty thus oof grt ape oy fos Spt oi He hb gprfesion ard Cited Brash a or on ddvotale of An Advocate t spurl $ matrdain -Me Recrds and No ehbocat Salt be at day b deol oy pom iy Money ae an aetcurt of Alert: EL. Advorwke "ga sutaireol te rere tne pea ofa fudmunt- and no pment sos ne lent “Much “las Information esas ren b he bUhth amount bs (popatore! feonduct: (naeneun The Lmume Cunt held al paatihrnert off Removal of Pe dame of the ppl fhem he soll of Yebeals» He taste ese Tet Ta o ‘ie th Sndig setatning duth dvocots On He xoll of rhe pif enahine it he dnd awed from poacher fn a oust" or before ang es poem tn Sed g aston eaworonb the (patthmenl Ap semeral of hi Name te ral] of ehbocata. (9)BeroreE THe _HON'BUE SUPREME Cour OF INDIA Cul Appeal Nb. 1938 /2000. Between! Ro. Loxena dae & be we Cut a Balorarn Praiad fhoena Facts OF THE Case Pe pple as on Fetetlet a iy ad practioner si a a ben ard of pn is ee me ton f alive ‘ont Mae i pte Gh 107.1993 te Bank founinated th atin and saga the Bark. Spstead of at the Ay bie ead as pate b a feng = 97,000/- a1 te Balante Sumunexcdion 40 lich he Soforered the Bark “ol te | Fk esol beached ape tad se a poor Ham bs te pelort fii, de 1 bajo i ae ae late Box ; ned tat be bs eect of dten and off ie 4 him. The &. Box Guneil Fate t dapote “be Completnd evr Under Sedion 36 B of Alvocates Het, 196). te fy ie posh load “ransfoowd to deni of Fh ard held oe lad i gly of rate! Noord fact: awLssues | bthether Advoeate ras din ths fon bit Unpatd Fees de bn yh ad for le “t 2 Llhether —subaintr (ase uath him amourls b Jrofewional | |Nirandact ¢ d A fe Uae ai |. ctor the Cpt of Fil 4 Gedy Uhder Sachin | Lt MLN 18722 ‘pel ae | Finomigs. | “he Dergplay Cronlee off Bax Cunel of Srdtd and | tt pated 2 a of broad od how | liable pm port The is a ppublte Snsbtebion, Te | los the cedy of Rypordert b “neturn the buef b Bank andl alto + 4p bepre he Commie th seed hie aligns Made th feabten. ‘wr Te wos alto found Hat Bankou, Facer asos ee Alban of gh hace and tg Brokers May in absence By the Cnbvact t the , elaine ab a de (Px Gawral Balance of aasonls arg Bgl -b them, but no” thor porsons have a Right, to shldn a1 a Seaunty fon Sich bnlonte baikd Unless thew i an Crdract: to that offeel Unless Section rn of Sndtan Crdrasby fet, 1272 th Moeate beep fle eannot amnanl by Godt Baikd. Thre & no degpe “fn nvedig Gp cue flo inko Money, _ [nox Gan be fold to any 34 parcly.Hente te saltance pated on “flection tml of Andtan Condrach “Act, oe hs reviled on othe igen of fils lish wath hin. : qeoeemeutr The Dis oy is f do Sal Sno rare What the Refusal to ehh the Fils to clont bhhen he oemarded, the dame amounted to Misconduct Under ection as of! Advocates Met, 1961 (12)b mele of deatton of Lume Gud, tht fold. hak the | Advocabes had "a den On the Fils jm dtr Ret tr Sach Gncumsantes 18 te not neeestaxy to flee a Harsh funtthent on Apulark- (and a Repuimand” esould be Aaffietent tn Snbereat- oa On pecta fart of the Cases sus ontihmert Snpoted vex Cannel} be Counted as 0 precedent. (tsBeront "THE _HON'RLE SUPREME Cour OF INDIA Gal Appeat No. 4003 /2004 Between Wi Ras Dah parde aeeeeeneee = APPELLANT. Ano | Ber Couns! of Tria ond Ohou ResPonnen'. |Fres_oF wwe cae | Ramarao chardoba. Jadhay, VWhyadhnnr Ramarao Jachor [Ard Chandralant Rardeo Jadhav, how in after sefoord to as “he fanart: wore fouseuted fon Corning Mucor of 6 pours 6n \I6® Decunbor, 1990 at Village Mardi, Talla loon, Distt Alorded. ho gerd oguld he Sustns Chott for appanbmert of on Anteus ere b pedotsect ag Grobe 0 le an Abvote because of the rfo A Suaston Onuxt appointed thet Sv. Arh, | 8 Arrieus Curiae % pnt sa Suastons Coust (afler bial und the Cappine 6 any of the Offere with jand ascaxded um Daath erally by “an eee os Fp. | i194. On the dame dade the Applland Contacte -te Ce, |Yervada Codral pt 0 lark | Sf 9 8 ped fon 1) argued oT dand ton \ eo at - tan n the Vakal — (prey an| Sie | pt alk eg St gs fe os he sas “ths te moke a Name pox Humulf. On loth October, (991 Appellant vitifed the Youwada Cenlnal brcton aga and 6btatned in as 6n Some Stamp Popes: é ” “the dud was nok suad Gro t Ye Complainants nol e Gonfends wou made frown to them. Grapeinanh Syred and ppl (ty)ee thumb haps én the doumuck fr ood Faith | Th Janay 1982 the High Genk clic He Pope! of the Complainants Snd Canyfrmd he Death denlonce and Sabsequentl irank wou ty Death. | uty Gnplinan | a Wh Februar 192 Appeiand mck the epnenl | Yowada Cntral pution ak “bid tm tat bh ‘then lao on te bast of Yom of Moreag eutel fron by tam aushonteg him to Sell he dard “hat he had fated the Man steetived by him towards hte fet Feothon oe asked | [Complainants te authonize him bb propo an Appeal to the dipmeme Count wth thy ceded. “thew after the Cmplainanl: tid a Gerplaind ustth the chaitman, State Bar Council to the effet tat Hie cyplant alo ums pacing as on strate ob Md |Naharothdra Gmotled an ack" klhtch ameurted 40 fpuofustonal [Monet Llithin he Meaning of Scion 95 Of tty Meads | |et, 1961 and fin the cid ‘aul Diep achion be taken. | Te eaas Hated th the Compl hot Appleant Klmbor 4 | | bike toms 60 pom of age had a bring Moher, Apart Nene 3- had a enife and Four Cu) Minox daughters» ard Appltant ‘Nambor 3- bad @ eft (©) Thee Daughow and a dn who |aoere Qu Minow. They had sugaeabed Pn the Appotnlment. of an | Advocate as Amteus leks 8 ped a to oe oe sfor the dawviing Nendo Of te Fay in tue th sore Staten” to cath. wanted to leave dome pro tox ther Family Munbow to Suomie bit de of Starvation (That had! ne audhontted the Ayltaht -b Seu then dard. That the Apputord had jplayed Froud 6 ‘tum and Sold (ts)deter On Sum of Rs Mocol- was jpatd tb the Sppaland. The ace Of Rs. 28,0001 Could nol by dain by te pers ax te Power of Atonrey eseutel ine sas Cancelled ‘the Cmplainarts Issves, 1 "bo Patines prove Hat the Appuiand /Repordent met them on 30-08- 1991 and Obtained Vokalatnama & supmuant tum in Sesiral Appelt 2 Bo the Piitionea prove that Respondent Advert doled fon no Rerunviadion & So Peitonow prove Yat Reperdent sthocate on lob Edlober, 1991 rel [Pétion and 6Hlaine thir cares On Sanp Paps caithout | “plaintng te Cohn of te Stamp papers t 4, Bou the Reppordent foiove Hat pplitionce exerubed th Row of Mornay tn his fovea bs abtenade thin and? |5: Boer te AHocate prove Hat he wos entitled b and dabttied steceiving the fees ing the land ig tb te | tnd tapas 7 “7 “ft | $80 the Peltonew poe tol te ad of the ale of ets land by Respondent Abocate, fn te gran Ghreumutances Corstilule, te (profational or any Other Misconduct of Mrcal- Repordant. ? FINDINGS. The Brgplinoy Commitee of Ba Coureil off crdta Pad thet dopant af catitlag the byief fam. “te ae pal palate? on baits of bikch easor off Ateaney was enecated in his Favour ducing Him b Sut te land. Tt uns found Hal Appetiont had Yad prow that Qrplainan od titted te four of Alay (te)[eat by in to igh Mopar | Sy “he doiounen of the Grand dk | 4 i binant, ad Bor Gun tak ar alu Cupironte | and Sktued Notte to the Appellant usho fed hu Rp dn the Reply fied the Appellant he wy Hol te lohanh wove 4 os cau of Yervada Canal ptr be Lfuxther admitted that the Thal of ~the afonesatd Conpliranh coors Condeoked by an Prmteus Gouae and ~the Death Jurdence usas infasd (by the ceatons Tide, Nanded. | He dessibed mses 10 be an Export [Chininal dower ar he hae! Conducted Mary Suttons Trial and Appeal tad (plead by him tht he hed al “tte Some thes dyes as aad etn Fy er the Fear of [he “Sate Advocates by lard of the Complatrark. Te was further fd Hat bn che sequest of the Gola [er 30th Puguit, 199) he acypled the Vakalodrama on bebayf of the Complainants» 8n an Oxal weemert that te hatrank sould pay Pe 50,000/- b be Appellant for hia) He Gnfounadion Gale and the Appeal before te La. “That the Comp oe & pay a dum of Barba a fb aed celal tn 4 lle Of “thee land plo xecover and stole the xetefpedl Sale Nace Be fasten oot of Ut teu wally Y He inary “the Appear hhacl old’ Only & Peres and 30 Gurdthas Of land to tet the Expentes nother tart ushich needs to be Merdioned tr hat the Govourmerd- Valuation of the dand was 136, 000[- but the Appellant had Sttled “he Final Cnatderation al| Ri. i000). Out of Kihioh Ri. 30,000)- usas ard at the time of He Agneement t0 Seu and the Maing amount wos to be pate before” Let Maxch, 1992. (ry)[fe he jan edt Be dan onl | Sngeieym | The Dugplrary Commitee fore the Apellant Gut [Of grow profesional Mucrdack as defrel rel Sechion 35 of te |Advoares Act, (961 and dbecled Sate Bax Gouri! of Maharashtra | land Goa to sumone “he name off Appellant from Rout of sate | |Box Coaneil of Maharashtra and Cut of % 25.000: wou ape | land made payable here of Ompltrhnls bane by the time | [°F the amplanants ese already been to cath in Grceudion of [Pet Lelerze Spend On Bon | Soprane Cou Held that th te Ione of 100 Rustlrent: ts the Bench tm Uo fron of the Bax Hardg from Subrdnale along 6 igh peso are Gpined! from that Gre Cannot find Honest ancl Howl looks eae fn their Chambers and dat that, He has Come ashen "| he "Socely in Geren Repel Bow Gunil off Males and (Should tle a rbot off Moning ell one tale Pemadial’ Sheps. | Supume Cur obirnttred te Appral ard esithout | Godt fr hel rol find ony Mut. ? aBETWEEN. pre Ves Pradlihosary a . Appeurur AND. Gs. Athok kuna el § Othow. ss .. Resnonpenrts Berore THe —Hontwe ovens Curr Or Invin Cwil Appeal lo. 5099 /z002, | | | | | Foers_oF THe case the Fads Lending to the fing oy the Bauur: Cost ase that the pet Saige twat fill Order Seetton nn Of the eb iy oe ah Ts, the pu Respordard befora “te Slate Base Courctl Be yor 1994 butch was endruted b te Deeply ews of ate oe The ul trade ty the Complaint voas Hal Appellant ee ee ow b osld Cases are pac bh dint Cools of jasttan. dn th yeox 1990, ce ax gppoled | gufbanees (os Undor| ar a ert Patho la 1B re WIG pen dd it Pct On 05-10- 1990 Repent 4 wad edad hee ‘in a dard oT re 14 y 1982 oa Ye Gop tn col Count # un hit elaine i to sos enbanted By fe Rs. boop Pm. The dana Aequtttion suferense Number ta hee Urlor fred fn fig of Kbitten dabement ir uxt Om o1-1- 1991 Phe Bet Number 4 rather appeaxel th Qk on ot 2-199) (idnok fled behien Statement on behaif of the Appellant Consequently The Court Clted he Gpportantly for sling the hhiten Statement on behalf of Appellant Order dlabed 67-12-1991 Respondent Amba 4 did nol iybom Be Apetan! about ‘the Said endor of earned Court. | The claimant th daid Case examined , Crost- examina! those wstlresses not did he Inform the Appellant about this. Alo {i daid Veforences , the dale wos fixed as 10-11-1993 fon fpodtuing entire evidence. The Respordent alo aid not inform the Appellant about the afoneialel Ondex date 10-11-1993. Uiloaely the dand Agatti Beant Numbor- 14/1982 was decided on 02-12-1993 again the Appellant. land fn tal Jad an toad of 2 125 Cuones wns announced the Courts Even th final Gedler pastel 4 Coot esas not Conweye by th Appellant: at (Pointed Gut de, carlin He Comp birant cas entrusted bo Diacgprany Cormier of Hale Bax Cami! of Rajasthan but Sine be (Proceed of be State Bax Guncil are hot Concladed before Us dipulated jpexied of 1 yar. The ume Matter eas bransfooned: to the Bax Cure! of India fn (95: Tssves 1 Whethor Ue Respondent: Number 4 eas appointed aj Relainen 5 defend Jaipur Develyprnend Authontly jn Some saforence Cases before the Cuil Coot Of daspunt 2 bihther the Gnplainant was kept in dark by Respondent, about the ppnognes Of th Case ie, dand Acquitition Reference rlumber twhagr anol Final Order cate 2-12-1998 Of Leowned Count 2 20)(B bahdhr the Refendent. ewas Gut Of frgfsornl Mitcmlect | | FINDINGS. | ch the wsend Case Hb opprons bs os “hab Respondent 4 has cltclaed the Coyfictng interest thot te hed in the Notion but had gone a Slap frther fg the tread opened) Apart Ae ne APE | Te t Chan thot te Raspordent Nuunber 4 ts | [Appointed as Relnine to defend Tajper Development athoaty and | Paid Enhancement of Retinerhap Fee of % 6o0l- 4 Saapen | Declopmend Athonity. Resjendent Number 4 is prove tty of | refs Macenduct by Uh ipeme Court of Trdia after the | detatleel aval Of the Cotes hgevven. tthe Fadl Nbvaabon eakich has bun ghen | and te Onl of Rye Int, in Corluetng the caus pros and establehes ine Miscoroluck and ¢ Apne ort Pound not Repordends Gul Of profentonal Wierd Siprome Cou Ordoted and coweld hat Respondent Mamber 4 be Suspended asa Adwiote som practice Fon a. peutd of 6 Martha Pom the dak of Grote. Neancshil, Supreme Count Upheld the order of Ke Dieesph Crovnitte Hat te Raponderts Akimbor 8 and Number 3 axe not Gatly “of Chages are allalion of rcnduc made again then.Berone THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. OF _ INDIA Civil Uppal tio. 4363/2004 Between! Manan rdey cern Arun AND Pannalal Tardey 8s bl th Respoueut Frets _oF THE Case “the GmplaSnand Made an Appeal Under cstion ia of Mews ats} ethane nen a onder dated yu Diep Geis of fx onl of The dite’ 38 ed a ae inst the Repondink, [Aebrocabe practt fn hi pola dad Bla ‘al po Sa ray deal that he ts inwolved in of fabe Cases by | i hy oll Taleo fnucing Getllomert, dowurenky | nank fet hd ee peed abo usithout At | co. bhabaclos (Co- Accounrtanh) Rey | and Fabrue ches dyrcia land 6 eves he as i] d “The Complotrant dal of +0 L the | ed pad eh hell Guily of “hell Murcordewt and tn. thi sapod, eee Pe te als of Drak Peed St is nt a, lofnant that -the be proceeded eaith oe Mirearclact be punished by Cancelling his dicense in provtee fat pnt and Othow (22)The Pipi dd vosilln Halarent & Coaplatnd and died laviegectZons in Be opal. & he ayy & Brit | fed thal he ell ie oF Gua! any. febtiow rte cheumend, edule the pla thal Cmblsinant hos beer fled again bin due i enemy, “The Complainant fed hy APRdontt in of the Ampbint andl Sneownse of enquiry examineal Several blitnestes. The Gonplainant alto produced deaunentax @rtderte On a Other hard, authough ‘Gee spond Arridarit in Lappost of ouply “but iho offered himself {am a Cnoss- Examination ron he let in eriderte tn Opperston jo Complaint in apport of hr ry | “The Dregplinaxy Committee of bax Gunett off Ulla pradesh havit sagard te Be enk's op Grofersoras | pra ard tot he cam in Ve on | (professional! eae 9 iha ing Vikalatnomas without an authenity and later ort All filles Aap Ganppromites 1 pasted on Onder dati 28-05-2002 doe from proslice far a |powod of Takax from the date 4,3 ilps The Order posted) 4 Direfplieany Commitee , Ba Gonet! of Trdia on 20-06-2004 ie. the gle Maller of Appeal | Tssves Hl Wthelhex the ped lnk Advocate had fikol Fabnivabecl Yakslatramay on xhalf Of 7 witnesses tendered in evidentes 4 Gmpltrant and whether they fad fie! ang Gmpromie in lidation Of Gud on not? 2 Uhther the Aepporclenk Mrcale ted Gos. Gamined tho esitnesses On above appt or rbee 3 blhethor the Disciplinary Comittee, Bax Gunetl of Sedia He Bool Subrtiton of Reforcant oven cid nab fee bimveyf for Cross- Exantpoton th aap of Apidovtt that he fed tn Suppostof his ap on Nt | 4 Wheto the Reypondend hocade Comite! pncfearonal Mucor Undex dudion as of Pdrocatu Ack; 1261 on qe | Fines. Gr Caxefal Corutderaton of endsu Melovial plated on second , Spname Com tt of the View that the Fog yecorded | Dip Committee, Ban Coun! of lex qpradesh “hud that | oeate usar fnvofecl in dortous fonal Nisconducl- by i Vikalotrama usith * Out any ‘outhontly oral dakor On lng fctitious Gmpromite usthih advouely cluewe to be sterlonel. 7 oveensenr iu dn dight of above dual sptton Aeprere Court Corstdoucl the quill of al Guot sustoredl the eg of Dauptnany Cuitie Box Guna of Ute prod — | that "the Moar wos tryohuol ha Souous tustonal “Nyjeoroleuok ting Vokalbdnama usithout fy and dahx 6n 4 ous Gmpromits. “4 preme Covet Chiwl Hot Repordnt Pdrcade alsowes fas Communttadion usith the of Mi [Hat meets the -buin Bbfeina diffoentes andl Eyeection. ng Gompromite eathout uly dtnty and rally of digo! prunfston pi we a ihe andl pu” of ube “ir “she \ th Moe Ow the Reypordlent Advocate had been paeviows tfounel t be Sold fra fustonal Muteordet ard he fre 4 Sepmarded Heung a tb au tue » Supreme Cowl Viwss th esoubl br ust ard proper ard te Ryponlecl Areate ft Suspundleal fom te fon a ecoel of 3 yaxs from the leat bile aeBerone THE —_-HON'BLE__ SUPREME _CouRT OF INDIA | Coiminal Appeal nto: 1108-115 /2004. Between OP Shama and Othe Dppevunwt. AND Mik Gunk of Pane ord a Responeu? | Pets OF THE case THE CASE Criminal Appeal nl. 1108-15 feooy axe reeled agatut Carmen Jedgemerl and final Order data 25-08-2004 | Passed by) Divtion Bench Of High Count of Pardo and bax paca hore by Burch atten gjecting the Clin of Gms howe in found att of tum Gutly of Crintral Cnkonpt anal Comic | hon Under diction 12 and suadd asith Suclon 15 and 2) of |Cnlenph of Couh Act, 1971 and Sentenced -them to Variow toms of Simpl Inprizrment and Fre appriand by the onder of | Conviction and Sentence, Sharma has fled Crirsnol Appeal. | Fath On dated 1-09-1999 bithricé and re | Fxidabod by hu letter adelnessed b the oul y| Panjab and Haryana has Saled tot fil ws dy eaith the Remand of ‘Accused in the HR Ab. 136 dated on 1p-06- un Under Kuetion 393, Y52, 506, 3y of Ipc pertaining & pie Salion Chessa, the Pabe pnascuton sugueded hin cn stenondig the Aested to okee Cura. | By tat tine Mr LM Prachay, Advocate deprcertng Perused Opposed sequel of dole Remond. Mter beg 7" the Mairabe semarded the aus to folte Cady Onder of Pole Remand eoas nol found a N.LN Prashay | Advocate, become envaped ard Making chvogatony semark againl him.used Oh dit, igh Court took le Malton by he uo mito and | fnthiated Gon eedings againot the “Condemnors Under | ation sonbad a “ete huideklish tok pte on | ji-09- 1999 fn te Court, “Faridabad spn takin opprapeat adion. | | ip Cok tahing Jovmares of lene and Overall Gnduct of found a of thr putty of Criminal Gnd tsithin “the Of Relion 20) of Het Impose Simple | Umpttorment of “0 ordhs and 3 Months eatth a Fine % towel | | fand %_ 2000/- eath- As Shaked earlier ehelhagig Satd Convichion land nee Be above Appeals ha been Fld He Ram Jeth Nolant Coca oor Appellanls abnited thet fn vw of fact, Appllants i Heir Mistakes Sroednsely, | 4 Unconditional Ing an Areidawils before Hoh me alto pled qi cilnade befow sho “the atunate Incded has Geuored and “Aeusied tended apology ond aut dr of Uy Gack. dod tr Gontonnon te | I a oho Gated ak altgd budent bad Senmad mbox 1994 Conatdexing. “he me ime and yy the Htstake tordereel Untondtdional opegy blo bh as usell as befou the Gntoxned Ig Issues kath alt Apdond rhs oroted Coininal Oonp elin tthe Meani‘y of dation 2¢c) of dct On Not 2 2 Mlhethor the Avoca pled pruptnal Pucondact ancl Uiquetle as bs uty to Ouxt ox Not? 2 blkebhor the Cousct Aetapled Unconditional ology of wt the Advocates on Not 2Fovpntgs. The Lepnome Cou srloaling tte Adecabe dty to Gant (Satin 4 of chart pat w “lhd)" Sandon of (Piefesional Conducl “ard etiquele * of Bax Comat of India hig Other Sa ng fy Cae 1 the dolurm Slademunds™ made by ‘all Appe arty tr the ee of Affidavits dale 98-oy- 201) also Pal wh, Defoe Ht Ce ar bow isbrake, Say ead | Unconditional ape yy and sith adele cael Naintain Good four tn e. Tiveereur Fal otal Gout th light of fag —— and Ne + Galil vital eal in en of provision Ls Seabe 126) of Ace and lag a al Aplin. Pu Appell soe diapered off On the aboveBerone THe _How'buc SUPREME Court _OF _INDIA Cit Uppeal No. 8x93 [2005 lary Civil Uppral No 1484 F005 | Berweenl Deng oop thoustony ot Sa Ler sArreusut| AND | Nhthulad Vishon heme Redhaonn | Frets OF THE Case. | The 2 rae ben | Abate Dhaonaj oa diy. datiched estth 2° Onder dotel On eetoter 3, 2004" and Grmrsttee of Bey Gere of tna gn Ti ood, dec fas ban | ar ple (pel of Len fim he cele of ie ‘at ge ae ee Abthutal vaca hase fae fr of Bir wi al Dp * The cee eae ee it Abocate vhpellnt ae date of 3-11-1998 On dole ud eateded by Fils ngh Bato th force of Sook Sucht Kar Conevining the dale Hs: 423 Stualed tr Meuing bdhich wed alte" by Advocate Appelt: I fos been Slate on that bn the kluton dide of Sata sprpedy tr Geupation of Cnyplirard hos a been tranyfooed yy Vendon “to Muocate yn ing Gronenip nyt auth ndors fathr dardas ae Bina had! enteud t nae ao the lainard- on 6-11- lon wd vow _7™ led a LEE ee lait ae AE indeAs a Matin of fact Advocate Kine Mareen tna duit et bela of denies Duk Sigh dca inant fox ae On Notice, bet Ae mus be fe agate He sd tb roa te Sloturent Wade in te le deed 03-11-1999 Ly in Gaspostion of Gop lainank to Menat patent by Wht al ee et drdla hearing the poschiu on Cruidtration of withnte tendeud tum. Reloading if ng agobat Advouate Appellant Gay of [Pee me topes Committee of ban Couret! ob ts an a prinard b Advocates Appitiant sti th order oo ae A. Not dattfied ust Onder date! ay 04- 2002 pou (api pnp i fon of Madhya Pradah the ed Uder (sc 37 basis At wiles Bax “Counsil yo Dugplinary Commitee of fox Crureil of Thdia trode oe 31-10-2004 allowed the Apral of Grnplatnant, tment of Kpninard Aas Cammstee gpa caper Onoloud i ayn dp machtce fon riod of 4 yeax ce aif Att has bean Mom hon 2 yeous fem ‘Dede Of Order Do Committee of Slate Box Counetl. The Cross peat of Advoratel Apellant tt rol Moitatrehe. Lisves | bhether Rpondent Advocate ppwrehoued the pom Fenda in date deed that 3-I- 1999 as bthich Repordant Advocate who cas aestng klttness & eviction and dhid -t ree ieee2 Wibr Repandet Areal debealdy fied 0 att fon alin | th the ame “of Jitindra igh Patra gait Grpploinant alte) lent esos the Boney “there Of as Mertioneel tn ale ded” | 3-1-1999 1 P ehatox Rapndink cake har ben lt of referral Misondact? ei p | |mowes The dugplioy Omnite at Hate Box Cunetl has Conalead tne Mabel ; “Sneludlng enidenee Of Cormplatrant and Advocate Appellant axsived at I edig that Abocate Appellant esos fly of proftoal Hon Aba walter of fast, Advocates Apion had fed a chit tr behasf of Vindon agar Conplanant fk fey Eaten fam rprumtis | | Foserenm. Onder dated 3-11-2001 Sapam Gut bucked Advocate Appellant to serriain csert 6r Mant ag of | Haig tn addétion t Cxcumstances fotited Me. be engl ae fon Counsel. | | Advceale Appelt Arformed ole he fas been Seffctg | from Quivtence tn hte fei es ao not Gaping Good Heatth. | [dlpreme Catt fird that Two Appltations “4 Snletlo Application No.8 in civil Appeal Mumber 2293/2005. have been trode by he Advocote Appellant and Grmpltnant ftotly digas! of type | tm tens of Cmpremiie behseen “them Sr Supreme Courd Yas te Mttimend voith the frank dows nok “Miigale hie oul ary [profeutinal Macon ard Mout not ppuerent adequate punt b dvorot Appultont Both these app asters ow 4 safe, | | 38r _ | | ml sagard b& Grex at feb and Cncumslaness a the (Cae bhich fore been noled above wx ax of Vw tat if | Mdveade Appellant it yperded prom (proclie fm 2 ported of 3 Months from te dake are above bppetions be mut Upreme Gut Order eee ay (a)