IN THE MATTER OF P. AN ADVOCATE versus .

IN THE MATTER OF P. AN ADVOCATE versus .

The Advocate's conduct in causing gross delay in filing the bill of costs, without acceptable explanation, involved gross negligence amounting to professional and other misconduct under the Supreme Court Rules, justifying removal from the rolls for five years.

Parties
Advocate on Record (respondent): Mr. P.; Client/respondent No. 2(b): Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath of Puri (through its Executive Officer); Senior Advocate (briefed by Mr. P.): Mr. J.; For the Attorney General: C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and R. N. Sachthey
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 January 1963
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Disposal After Tribunal Report
Outcome
Advocate found guilty of professional misconduct and removed from the rolls for five years.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Gross Negligence, Advocate's Duties, Etiquette of Senior Advocates, Condonation of Delay, Removal From Rolls
Disciplinary Jurisdiction Advocates Law Professional Misconduct Gross Negligence Advocate's Duties Etiquette of Senior Advocates Condonation of Delay Removal From Rolls

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. P.

Advocate on Record (respondent)

Board of Trustees of the Dakhina Parswa Nath of Puri (through its Executive Officer)

Client/respondent No. 2(b)

Mr. J.

Senior Advocate (briefed by Mr. P.)

C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and R. N. Sachthey

For the Attorney General

Procedural Posture

Disciplinary Proceedings / Final Disposal After Tribunal Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Advocate acted with gross negligence in taxation of his client's costs.
  2. 2 Whether such conduct amounts to professional or other misconduct under Supreme Court Rules, Order IV-A.

Ratio Decidendi

The Advocate's conduct in causing gross delay in filing the bill of costs, without acceptable explanation, involved gross negligence amounting to professional and other misconduct under the Supreme Court Rules, justifying removal from the rolls for five years.

Court Disposition

Advocate found guilty of professional misconduct and removed from the rolls for five years.

Orders

  • The Advocate's name shall be removed from the rolls for five years.
  • Advocate to pay respondent's costs for the enquiry before the Tribunal and of the hearing before the Court.