Go to NLSIU library.
Ask the permission of the librarian and pay fees Rs 25 to use the library.
The bottom floor has the Bar Council Review books.
You can get a copy (xerox) of the relevant orders at a nominal fee on the first floor.
Some years I think 1988 or 1989 Bar review books are missing.
***********************************************
For the 3rd Unit the ten judgments links are as below:
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136429/ (In re D An Advocate)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158789/ (P.J.Ratnam v. D.Kanikaram)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/842206/ (N.B. Mirzan vs The Disciplinary Committee Of Th)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/276363/ (Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar )
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1226288/ (Chandra Shekhar Soni vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan And Ors)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/438082/ (An Advocate vs Bar Council Of India And Anr.)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/662504/ (Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India& Anr)
The Apex Court while dealing with the case of Ex- Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 2003 Supreme Court 739 while referred to the above decision, in para 31,32,33, 34 and 36 observed-
"31. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court.... The principles is that those who have duties to discharge in a Court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the Courts....
32. It was expected that having known the well-settled law and having been that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected administration of justice, there would be self regulation. The above mentioned interim order was passed in the hope that with self restraint and self regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not. fructified. Unfortunately strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle.,,, ,,,,,,The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined.
33. It is held that submission made on behalf of Bar Councils of U.P. merely need to be stated to be rejected. ... Bar Council of India is enjoined with the duty of laying down standard of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. This would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that Advocates do not behave in unprofessional and unbecoming manner, Section 48A gives a right to Bar Council of India to give directions to State Bar Councils. The Bar Associations may be separate bodies but all Advocates who are members of such Association are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their conduct ...
34. In the case of Abhay Prakash Sahay Lalan v. High Court of Judicature at Patna , it has been held that Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act empowers High Courts to frame rules laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and Courts subordinate thereto. It has been held that the power under Section 34 of the Advocates Act is similar to the power under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. It is held that other Sections of the Advocates Act cannot be read in a manner which would render Section 34 ineffective."
36. It must be noted that Courts are not powerless or helpless. Section 38 of the Advocates Act provides that even in disciplinary matters the final Appellate Authority is the Supreme Court. Thus even if the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an Appeal the Supreme Court can and will,, apart from this, as set out in Romans Services' case, every Court now should and must mulct. Advocates who hold Vakalats but still refrain from attending Courts in pursuance of a strike call with costs,. Such costs would be in addition to the damages which the Advocate may have to pay for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance.
Ask the permission of the librarian and pay fees Rs 25 to use the library.
The bottom floor has the Bar Council Review books.
You can get a copy (xerox) of the relevant orders at a nominal fee on the first floor.
Some years I think 1988 or 1989 Bar review books are missing.
***********************************************
For the 3rd Unit the ten judgments links are as below:
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136429/ (In re D An Advocate)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1158789/ (P.J.Ratnam v. D.Kanikaram)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/842206/ (N.B. Mirzan vs The Disciplinary Committee Of Th)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/276363/ (Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar )
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1226288/ (Chandra Shekhar Soni vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan And Ors)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/438082/ (An Advocate vs Bar Council Of India And Anr.)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/662504/ (Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union Of India& Anr)
The Apex Court while dealing with the case of Ex- Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 2003 Supreme Court 739 while referred to the above decision, in para 31,32,33, 34 and 36 observed-
"31. It must also be remembered that an Advocate is an officer of the Court and enjoys special status in society. Advocates have obligations and duties to ensure smooth functioning of the Court.... The principles is that those who have duties to discharge in a Court of justice are protected by the law and are shielded by the law to discharge those duties, the advocates in return have duty to protect the Courts....
32. It was expected that having known the well-settled law and having been that repeated strikes and boycotts have shaken the confidence of the public in the legal profession and affected administration of justice, there would be self regulation. The above mentioned interim order was passed in the hope that with self restraint and self regulation the lawyers would retrieve their profession from lost social respect. The hope has not. fructified. Unfortunately strikes and boycott calls are becoming a frequent spectacle.,,, ,,,,,,The judicial system is being held to ransom. Administration of law and justice is threatened. The rule of law is undermined.
33. It is held that submission made on behalf of Bar Councils of U.P. merely need to be stated to be rejected. ... Bar Council of India is enjoined with the duty of laying down standard of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. This would mean that the Bar Council of India ensures that Advocates do not behave in unprofessional and unbecoming manner, Section 48A gives a right to Bar Council of India to give directions to State Bar Councils. The Bar Associations may be separate bodies but all Advocates who are members of such Association are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the Bar Councils can always control their conduct ...
34. In the case of Abhay Prakash Sahay Lalan v. High Court of Judicature at Patna , it has been held that Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act empowers High Courts to frame rules laying down conditions subject to which an Advocate shall be permitted to practice in the High Court and Courts subordinate thereto. It has been held that the power under Section 34 of the Advocates Act is similar to the power under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. It is held that other Sections of the Advocates Act cannot be read in a manner which would render Section 34 ineffective."
36. It must be noted that Courts are not powerless or helpless. Section 38 of the Advocates Act provides that even in disciplinary matters the final Appellate Authority is the Supreme Court. Thus even if the Bar Councils do not rise to the occasion and perform their duties by taking disciplinary action on a complaint from a client against an advocate for non-appearance by reason of a call for strike or boycott, on an Appeal the Supreme Court can and will,, apart from this, as set out in Romans Services' case, every Court now should and must mulct. Advocates who hold Vakalats but still refrain from attending Courts in pursuance of a strike call with costs,. Such costs would be in addition to the damages which the Advocate may have to pay for the loss suffered by his client by reason of his non-appearance.
No comments:
Post a Comment