0% found this document useful (0 votes)
64 views26 pagesEthics by Principleadobe Scan 03 Jan 2023
Uploaded by
ca.agarwal.piyushCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
64 views26 pagesEthics by Principleadobe Scan 03 Jan 2023
Uploaded by
ca.agarwal.piyushCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 26
BoreRE TE BAR coONE Oe THe ey
oo E STATE
UTTAR PRA
of UTTAR PRADts i
SHAE Bor counat oy We
sla Ty Olbor Pradech
Cor me: 4B
BETWEEN
—
mb: SUDESIE Ran}
and
MoMish CARNORA Goyer
ComPLAINT:— “The Complamant ledgad a. Complaint TR (he Bor
cCuret] allegerg thet (RL respondent advocat has mireondudGol
by lng SuSE gaint He Complainant and th ep a, bemg o
Poly G the very Cimpromite decree, hoch Was verified ley the
aduocehi. Perromlty,
Notice — Upon a complaint” bea by Te complainant 2. ndtice Was
issusd G the respondent, clong exTK Complaint copy rackeng hin
& disprove the alleqatinw made on him by the Complainant before
the dserpleiny Comnnttlen.
Repry to NOTICE! The responclent cowoce replica Mar all the
allegations made agent hiro are Ficlets amd coreng.,
Facts of THE CASE.— The recpondemt adwocal aqned ar a
witness in agreement oy sole dy plols esl by Kis Falher -in-las.
Me recesred conriderabion monty by Wary dp COmproMmie decree tn
N BUR fled by W Complacnamtt, coho had conchuetis hour on
their plolS. Thereahinc, the reepondent adwocalt fplad 4ualt agent
them for tree euickion , ghowong, them 08 lenanli and he oppraed
the Compromise clecrves pasted by the Coust.
Dt aT
Lowes - (1) OhelRee The Mipondent odwocaks oppor os
gn edwvcats fox
Feng Compromtic pelttar
( vhelRer the respondent fied HUET against ihe complosnen®
1 chead.
for the Sern
ca) Uhether te complain is bime barred,
EVIDENCE! There Ges orad and decurmentary evidence on aseord
oe
2 c TR. erst tue. The document’ reqording the suits fled
Ie dtipondent againtk the Complainartt wee produccest,
bay pendent og “7 P
ExnmiNATION '- Tk wor proved Thar the respondemt adveeai hes
Peg He Faletequamtia in ipote o beng a. Pott & the cmpromic
decrees, Omd (Ree Wes ora} amd Aotumentzing evichenee on record
for the fit [ese “The complaint je not Lema by Be UmcTahion
ond cx 2 maller oy pstatt tr uns eppateds (Rar the amplone
was fed expedite
ORDER(~ “The tesperdemb adwocalt Laas held Guay oy Properrionc|
miscondiut. thy License G practice wor Fesperndl eof for a perro
ar AEE WB costs oO Re. Loool— Pager. G each oy (Re
cemplasnants by the respondent within a peted ay 2 meni, falley
tehich fie Loncente thal fraikw be Hapendad for an additona:
Ported Ar ome year.
an 2
FORE THE Bey
Bc Cane. oF DEUN
wes nét Q mere negtiqere ect, bak te ts @ qos
PRbectlenad mirconcliack The Commie deeiday © tutpend the
Neipondert adwotale Ry a period oy D tyearr ond alto vnpored a
Gira Re aSv/— GS be potd & the Sppellamt damplasemnts BoFoRE THE Bag coy
The Duplmany Committee ay ik. fy,
ee
f Couantcl ey Oa str ay Utor Pladethy
coe ne
Tete
eo
Aunuae Panta?
aed
CHANDAS BUTT Prupey
Complain ti= The Komplocmant eit,
ted ak Th respendenk oudaw cake,
the Ser tegaged by him in hale, Collada WOR IL oppuitts potty.
MOTICE:— pen a complaant Crey by the complatnant a neha cas
We Case ne, SY Ste reePemdent oppenr before the
LMUTTEN STATEMENT! — “The Feaponcient ped ee agente Shai. Arran
Eee
and brother ty TR Couth 9 SOT Judge, Kanpur, ond He appellant wou
engeqel oF Nie adneacs.
Facts OF THe case: a. respondent fied a sce hs al Arun
cord brolher ih IR cour *y vil justge,
tony, the
Complainant Aetirned te his village
hia obience, Te defendant hack [heed oem o-pplication fer
Peporteg MR dam x, Fearne. uohaeh war Ndr Oppomd by the Complatnanty
The antie eantdemee Me [Re dafewelant ade wet recordlud mi the abtemes
evidence vy the cifendont, the
enel , I
Sy Ke Komplasrant, ord the meapendent dtd nt Cros enamene the undeest
S te relevany cepeck op th Controverny, Th uss alleged that I
ferploinamt had collidag woth Ra defender t,he tullt, and tor Ute some reason, the odbnen wos nyt Crom-examined . A1ee gener
ellegonen hove Geen made ion fn Complamank a4 an aac «
Teves’ Ch UhelRer TR. oppetlant adwncai, twat engaged by im
complomant amd he ecllidid WAR the clajemdort G (Ru suit.
tay whelBer The nfervention oy (RL ebrexplonany commiTlen vy Te eel
required ih The malter.
te
ARGUMENT: The argumank Gaor bebueen (Ra Bor cowrell anol a
appellant edwoes ar 5 Whelier TRL Lelie uns engaged by Ke
complabronk Gad he Colladad wh (Re defendant to fh tuck
GvipENce:— — OXTA T Grey armel chocumenTary evtdence om recare , Fhe
slats Gor Guncd ob Uther precerh held (RL eppellent guilty oe
Projestional Misconduset,
ExAMINATION:= Bated on [Ru autdtenn on reso], the sTakk Bar Cusncét
ge EP held the appetiant eG ap miconduuh The appellant’ prepecreef
an appeal & the BOT.
ORDER I The (5 Bor mun heed OR opplliant cdweeat guilty
Oy mixtendaact ond reprimancet him and dureclZoi him & Pap Cote ae
Rs-4,000]— BereRe THE BNR cOUNcIL oy beun
The Papa y Cmmttiy My The Bere cetane ty betht
—— te 4 eth
Beneen
Ts. Tronny
AnD
MUSTAFA MOT MolAmmeD yurur & oTHe RS
COMPLAINT! — The respondemt fylud o Corplaiint against the
oppellamt™ boetme the Bar Come a Indien stalhing That The adaxial
Pecedmed Re memes Fram COU receder, whieh i teed on Ha comprrmine,
decree PELE. fe Gilat Suma Re 0,444 wor drawn fromm (ku couse
feabrer, buk enuy Re "8,000 /_ wor paid & He respondent,
NOTICE: — The Commit, Pete andre G the appulart, suspending
Ha eppeliort for a pered oy 2 yeore end donelia kin & pay a tum
Gy Re-Sevl- G respondent ov Coct,
RAITTEN STATGMENTI“ Ty a ctobament @ complaint wet lodged
A ee °
gE he appttlant before fe Bar Cound Indice tfahing rar
Faers OF THE CASEI— The reapondemt war dependant in (Re sult.
He engaged the opplicam at an adweal. Th tue wes Compromiveg
ordering thet cub q- IK. amount Ayey WO TR Cour, the ep pellame
WM Re 50,379 [-. However, wml Re. (Bee ter patd & the
Teaponctont:.
Trsvecie (1) Lahey Oe cdiveal. pad omy Park 40 emeunt
—
Gm respondants
CD hele Iz bk pebpestteyet mirtenctust, ARGUMENT = “The appetlamt scveeats preduend tome Keep
Aasemen’
ge eedence Of Payment te tha say wrclent 13 tons repeckeet
by Bo Counc) om fe alee saute the te Aceounk bootes
were (ors
EVIDENCE — “The coun Meade saad That Ike eppellamt hos
LiKdram Ceot amousk from IK couse rereder,
CEA NATION S= The appellant eatuvecat prredused tome reeespir
as ctlenee MRac KL sprdlant pate & the metprndunb , whoet
wa repecs by Be Bar cach Ar India amd he alio plated
thor [FR areainte bovis wer tout
ORDER (= The Commiltin owed am order turpenclong I appellant
Fa a Peted % fw ryeann end fuurltin diaetcy bln © pag &
form ap Re. Stef — the Aetpen cent: Qi Courk comer THe BAR Coon.
wsecplonecy Comma
The Dee fhe Bar counca the state
enero a
potwes™
ame Ben COUNEIL OF MAH ARGH TAR
AND
pv: GABE LiceR & OTHERS
gop iat ATE To this Cam, Te respondents cre lemey ere prastoong-
ia eripamal Caudle Barrbay iy. Brsegg Slaliat | phere prechbonet
porttionta themselves ot the enffance dy megistval cour ama
coo For Temcetuess
wotiee:— The Ber Counc) oy Maharethine cll th MRL nowee
pots
wer respondent hawsyerr ore qeag, Oh Propesttera mitcende