D. SAIBABA versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1209 · Decided: 06-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
--
D. SAIBABA 
A 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 6, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
Section 35-Professiona/ misconduct~omplaint-Running of telephone 
booth by Advocate-Advocate 's plea that on enrolment as Advocate he had C 
discontinued running of the booth-Bar Council directing to surrender the 
booth-On failure to surrender order for deletion of his name from Advocates' 
Roll-Thereafter booth surrendered-Review Petition-Rejection of as barred 
by time-On appeal, Held, the innocuous lapse of permitting the allotment of 
the b!Joth in his name on the part of the Advocate could have been condoned- D 
Hence his enrolment restored. 
Section 48AA-Review-Limitation for-Held, has to be from the date 
of communication or knowledge of the order and not from the date of the 
order. 
Section 48AA-Jurisdiction of Bar Council of India to review -:-Bar 
Council of India or its Committee is not divested of its power to exercise 
review jurisdiction merely by lapse of 60 days from the date of the order 
sought to be reviewed. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Where law provides a remedy in case of ambiguity, the provision has to 
be construed as to make the availing of the remedy practical-A construction 
which would render the provision nugatory ought to be avoided 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'the date of that order-Meaning of in the context a/Section 
48AA of Advocates Act, 1961. 
Wife of the appellant-advocate, after their marriage has broken down, 
E 
F 
G 
1209 
H 
1210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A filed a complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961, complaining of 
professional mis-conduct committed by the appellant, alleging that despite 
his being a duly enrolled advocate, he was running a telephone booth 
allotted to him in the handicapped person's quota. 
Bar Council of India dropped the complaint. Thereafter the wife 
B lodged yet another complaint making almost identical averments. 
Appellant's defence was that though he was operating a telephone booth 
allotted to him from handicapped person's quota but when he applied for 
his enrolment as an advocate and co"'menced apprenticeship he stopped 
sitting at the booth and the same was henceforth operated by his parents. 
C Bar Council of India directed the appellant to surrender the booth. 
Appellant sought time for surrendering it in order to realize certain dues 
from the customers. On his failure to surrender the booth, Bar Council of 
India passed an order advising the State Bar Council to delete his name 
from the Roll of Advocates. Thereafter, he surrendered the booth. He 
sought for a review of the order of Bar Council based on the subsequent 
D event of surrendering the booth. Bar Council rejected the review petition 
on the ground that the same was barred by time. 
Appellant filed Special Leave Petition against both the orders of Bar 
Council. He filed a statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Act against 
E the former order of the Bar Council. During pendency of the appeals he 
also filed a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of Section 48AA 
of the Act. 
Appellant contended that Bar Council could not have rejected his case 
as 'the date of that order' as occurring in Section 48AA should be construed 
F as meaning the date of communication of the order. 
Bar Council of India contended that the limitation for review petition 
commences from 'the date of that order' which is sought to be reviewed; 
and that the Bar Council of India becomes functus offiico on the lapse of 
G 60 days from the date of the order and its jurisdiction to exercise power of 
review comes to an end. 
Allowing the appeals of the appellant and dismissing his writ petition 
the Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. So far as commencement of period of limitation for filing 
• 
' 
• 
D. SAIBABA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 
1211 
the review petition is concerned, the expression 'the date of that order' as A 
occurring in Section 48AA of Advocates Act, 1961 has to be construed as 
meaning the date of communication or knowledge of the order to the 
review-petitioner. Where the law provides a remedy to a person, the 
provision has to be so construed in case of ambiguity as to make the availing 
of the remedy practical and the exercise of power conferred on the 
authority meaningful and effective. A construction which would render B 
the provision nugatory ought to be avoided. True, the process of 
interpretation cannot be utilized for impla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.