MANAK LAL versus DR. PREM CHAND

MANAK LAL versus DR. PREM CHAND

The constitution of the tribunal suffered from infirmity as its chairman had previously appeared for the complainant, creating possible bias; however, since the appellant was aware of this fact and failed to raise objection before the tribunal, he is barred by waiver. The finding against the appellant for...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Manak Lal; Respondent: Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 February 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated November 11, 1955, of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 3 of 1952
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bias of Tribunal Members, Waiver of Objection, Quasi Judicial Proceedings, Removal From Rolls, Failure to Examine Witness
Professional Misconduct Legal Profession Bias of Tribunal Members Waiver of Objection Quasi Judicial Proceedings Removal From Rolls Failure to Examine Witness

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manak Lal

Appellant

Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated November 11, 1955, of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 3 of 1952

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal was improperly constituted due to bias of its member
  2. 2 Whether the objection to tribunal's constitution could be waived
  3. 3 Effect of failure to examine a witness no better than an accomplice

Ratio Decidendi

The constitution of the tribunal suffered from infirmity as its chairman had previously appeared for the complainant, creating possible bias; however, since the appellant was aware of this fact and failed to raise objection before the tribunal, he is barred by waiver. The finding against the appellant for professional misconduct is supported by circumstantial evidence and absence of adverse inference for failure to examine an accomplice witness. The punishment of removal from rolls is justified given the gravity and recurrence of the misconduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Removal of appellant’s name from rolls of advocates upheld
  • Appellant to pay costs