A practicing Advocate at AP High Court has prayed for arrangement of Rs 1 lakh interest free personal loan per advocate, to be repayable in 10 EMIs, after the situation become corona free. Notice was issued as under.
Tag: Advocate Antics
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011
Even though Supreme Court upheld High Court decision in holding the Police officer who executed the cancelled Non-bailable warrant against the practicing advocate, it held that Police officer was sufficiently reprimanded. High Court had also granted a compensation of Rs.2000/- from the personal account of Police officer to the Advocate!!!
Citations: [2012 SCC 9 791], [2011 AIOL 663], [2012 AIR BOMR 1 197], [2011 AIR SC 3393], [2011 AIR SC 5347], [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 65], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 260], [2011 JT 10 253], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 212], [2011 SCALE 10 233], [2011 SLT 7 1], [2012 SCC CRI 4 679]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934058/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd363607dba63d7e6e2d9
Palanisamy and Ors Vs K Dhanpalan on 21 March 2017
Supreme Court held that without giving fair opportunity to the appellant, Disciplinary Committee could not have arrived at the conclusion of guilty.
Citations: [(2017) 4 SCC 713]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190018442/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/06/01/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4/
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Deepa Bhure and Otrs Vs Jai Kishan and Anr on 15 February, 2019
A cunning advocate obtained blank cheques from his client as surety for this professional fees and misappropriate them. Law caught upto him and shown his place.
Anand Kumar Sharma Vs BCI on 01 March, 2019
This is a case of an advocate filing false information during the enrollment with Bar Council. After debarring him from enrollment, then he went of a petition/appeal filing spree at all level of courts. All the time getting dismissed.
Court On Its Own Motion Vs Deepak Khosla on 22 February, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi gave this judgment.
On 11.10.2013, while arguing certain applications in LPA 16/2012, the respondent, Advocate Deepak Khosla referred to the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Easwar, as „Dedh Bench‟ (Hindustani equivalent of one-and-half Bench). Recording this expression, the order dated 11.10.2013, noted that it would take a view on this expression at the time of final disposal of CM No. 2392/2013.
A old article of 2013 about this person here.
And few more below
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/Contempt-notice-to-advocate-for-%E2%80%98attempting-to-intimidate%E2%80%99-court/article17389175.ece
https://barandbench.com/double-whammy-deepak-khosla-moves-supreme-court-against-delhi-hc-contempt-gets-slapped-with-contempt-by-supreme-court/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Angry-HC-sends-lawyer-to-jail-for-misconduct/articleshow/51146445.cms
https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-20000-costs-deepak-khosla-kirti-uppal/
https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-turns-plea-video-recording-proceedings-advises-advocate-temperate-civilised-read-order/
Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018
Wonderful Judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, wherein it was held that Filing of False Affidavit is perjury and in this case it was done by a Advocate. A cost of 2 Lakhs was levied.
From Para 11,
A perusal of the criminal misc. application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the applicant has annexed some papers of case diary (Annexure 2 to the application) without disclosing the fact that from where he had obtained the papers of case diary which are confidential papers prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is surprising to note here that the applicant never appeared before the court below after submission of charge sheet and the trial court has also not passed orders under Section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. to supply the documents to the applicant. Since the court below has never supplied the papers of the case diary to the applicant as provided under Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. it is quite surprising how the applicant has annexed the papers of the case diary before this Court.
From Para 20,
Applicant before this Court is a practicing Advocate. He has himself stated so in para 8 of the present application – that the applicant is an Advocate and a public spirited person, a resident of Haldwani. Applicant has verified the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application on the basis of record. However, no document has been placed on record to show that on the basis of which record or document, the averments were made in paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application. However, the averment itself is false as the complainant is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and certificate to this effect has been issued to him by the competent authority. Thus it is a proven fact on record that contents of paragraph no. 5 of the application are false and misleading and were made to commit fraud upon the Court.
C.V. Sudhindra and Ors. Vs Divine Light School For Blind on 21 July, 2008
Another awesome judgment from Karnataka reiterating that when a client loses confidence and faith in his Advocate he can choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the case file.
Be that as it may, neither the trial Court in the present suit nor this Court in this petition would be required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations and counter allegations except to reckon the same to notice that the Advocates on record and their clients have been trading charges against each other, which alone is sufficient for a client to loose confidence and faith in the Advocate so as to choose to terminate the vakalathnama and seek for return of the file. The very fact that the Advocate is clinging on to the file without initiating any other action which would have been open to them in law, if in fact the Trustees had acted contrary to the interest of the Trust would indicate that the contentions put forth before the trial Court was not bonafide, at least in so far as claiming a right to remain on record as saviours of the first respondent when the first respondent has been in existence from the year 1958 as indicated from their letterhead and have taken care of themselves.
Honourable Profession… hmmm
In fact as and when any such unfortunate situation arises, the learned Advocate who has been appearing for such a client, should on his own free will come forward to advise the client to take back the file and should express lack of interest to appear on their behalf. That is why, this profession is known as honourable profession.
Other Judgements on this subject here.
Rangegowda Vs G.Deepak Adv on 7 July, 2014
Awesome Judgment from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court that vividly affirms that there is no need for a No Objection certificate from a advocate if a client wants to change to a different advocate.
The second respondent in any event cannot hold on to the brief when the petitioner has issued a notice terminating his Vakalathnama and has sought for issue of “No objection”.
A earlier judgment related to same parties here.
