ADVOCATES ACT CASE LAWS----
1)ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-35-PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT BY APRACTING ADVOCATE-APPELLANT A PRACTCING ADVOCATE WAS REPERESENTING THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO THE RESPONDENT-THAT THE CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPROMISE-AFTER THE DECISION OF THAT CASE THE APPELLANT/ADVOCATE TOOK A HAND LOAN OF RS.3000/- FROM THE RESPONDENT AND THE APPELLANT ALSO GAVE RESPONDENT A POST DATED CHEQUE AS A MEASURE OF PAMENT –BUT THE CHEQUE WAS BOUNCED-RESPONDENT THEN FILED APPLICATION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT –THE APPELLANT WHILE TAKING A HAND LOAN WAS NOT ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE-HE WAS ACTING ONLY AS A NEEDY PERSON AND THE RESPONDENT AS A CREDITOR-HENCE THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE GUILTY OF ANY PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT-FURTHER, BY ORDER OF THIS COURT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED RS.3000/- IN THE REGISTRY-HE IS LIABLE TO PAY RS.1000/- MORE AS A COST TO THE RESPONDENT –PUNISHMENT SET ASIDE AND COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 119.]
2]
A] ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-35-PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT OR OTHER MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF ADVOCATE-SCOPE OF- RESPONDENT WAS EARLIER AN ADVOCATE-SELECTED AS A JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-HE THEREFORE ,GOT HIS LICENCE TO PRACTISE SUSPENDED- AFTER SOME YEARS WHILE IN JUDICIAL SERVICE HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR TAKING OF BRIBE AND ULTIMATELY DISMISSED FROM SEVICE-HE THUS APPLIED TO BAR COUNCIL TO PERMIT HIM TO RESUME HIS PRACTICE AS AN ADVOCATE AND WAS ALLOWED- SOME OTHER ADVOCATES MADE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM THAT HE WAS DISMISSED FOR OFFENCE OF BRIBERY HE SHOULD NOT ALLOWED TO PRACTCE AND ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM U/S 35 OF THE ACT FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – IT IS N OT THE CASE OF APPELLANTS THAT AFTER RESUMPTION OF PRACTICE RESPONDENT HAD COMMITED ANY MISSCONDUCT AS AN ADVOCATE- FOR HIS PAST DELIQUENCY HE WAS PUNISHED- PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CANNOT BE COMMITTED BY ANY ONE WHO IS NOT PRACTISING THE PROFESSION OF LAW BEING AN ADVOCATE ON ROLL OF BAR COUNCIL-IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA THAT NO CASE OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF RESPONENT ADVOCATE IS PROVED UPHELD – APPEAL DISMISSED.
B] WORDS AND PHRASES- EXPRESSION “ OTHER MOSCONDUCT” IN SEC.35[1] OF ADVOCATES ACT,1961- MEANING AND SCOPE-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT” AND “OTHER MISCONDUCT”-“OTHER MISCONDUCT” WOULD INCLUDE MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY ADVOCATE NOT IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROFESSIONAL BUT IS ANY OTHER CAPACITY.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 119.]
CASES REFFERED – AIR 1956 SC 102, AIR 1958 AP 209
3] LEGAL PRIFESSION – NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF- LEGAL PROFESSION IS A NOBEL ONE HAVING HIGH TRADIIONS-ANY MEMBER OF THE PROFESSION FALLING FROM SUCH STADARADS DESERVES PUNISHMENT COMMENSURATE WITH GRAVITY OF MISCONDUCT.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 354.]
4] ADVOCATES ACT,1961-SEC-44- ADVOCATE FOUND GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND SUSPENDED FROM ORACTICE FOR 3 YEARS- SUCH ADVOCATE PRACTSING DYRING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION OF PRACTICE UNDER DIFFERENT NAME- BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, ON APPEAL, BY COMPLAINT AWARDING PUNISHMENT OF SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE FOR 3 YEARS –GUILTY ADVOCATE PREFFERING REVIEW PETITION BEFORE B.C.I. OF SUSPENSION FOR 3 YEARS AND RESTORING ORDER OF ADMONITION PASSED BY STATE BAR COUNCIL-NOT SUSTAINABLE-PUNISHMENT OF SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE FOR 3 YEARS RESTORED.
[1999 SAR [CIVIL] 472.]
