LALIT MOHAN DAS versus ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ORISSA

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 29-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
167 
the manner it is used to do in the ~ase of other indus-
tries where the conditions of employment and the work 
to be done by the employees is of a different character. 
These considerations would necessarily 
have 
to 
be 
borne in mind while the 
Industrial Tribunal is adjudi-
cating upon the disputes which have been referred to it 
for adjudication. 
They . do 
not, 
however, militate 
against the . conclusion which we 
have come to above 
that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the effect 
that the agarias are workmen within the definition 
of 
the term contained in s. 2(s) of the 
Act was justified 
on the materials on the record. 
We accordingly see no ground for interfering with 
that decision and dismiss this appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
LALIT MOHAN DAS 
fl. 
ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ORISSA 
(S. R. 
DAS c. J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAs JJ.) 
Legal 
Practitioner-Report-Procedure-Not open to District 
fudge to send back report to the Subordinate Civil fudge-Report 
once made proceedings can terminate by-Final Order of the High 
Court only-Member of the Bar-Officer of the Court-Duty to client 
and Court-Dignity and decorum of the Court must be upheld-Con-
duct-Not a mattt:t: between individual member of Bar and a member 
of 
fudicial 
Service-Disciplinary 
action-Punishment-Mitigating 
arcumstances-lnterference by Supreme Court-Legal Practitioners 
Act (XVIII of 1879), s. 14. 
. 
11it appellant pleader who already had strained relation with 
the 
Munsif made certain objectionable remarks in open Court, 
suggesting partiality and unfairness on the part of the Munsif. 
The Munsif drew up a proceeding under ss. 13, 14 of the Legal 
Practitioners Act, 1879, against the pleader and submitted a ~port 
to the 
High Court through the District Judge. 
An appliption to the Additional District Judge was filed by 
the pleader, for time to movt" the 
High Court to ge~ an order to 
have the matter heard by some 
Judicial 
Officer other than the 
4-76 S.C. India/69 
1956 
D/uirantiadhara 
Chemical Works 
Ltd. 
v. 
Stall ~·J Saurashtr~ 
BhagwaJi]. 
.November 29 
1956 
Lalit Mohan Das 
v. 
Advocate--GtnMal, 
Orissa. 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
Munsif who had made the report. One month's time was accord-
ingly granted, and for some reason Ythich is not very apparent, the 
Additional District Judge sent the record back to the Munsif. The 
Additional District Judge made an effort to settle the trouble. It 
was arranged that the 
pleader should 
apologise and a resolution 
should be passed by the members of the local 
Bar 
Association. 
Accordingly, the pleader appeared in the Court of the Munsif and 
filed a written apology and expressed _his regret, and the 
Munsif 
dropped the proceeding. 
Ir· was later found that the resolution was 
not passed in the terms suggested by the Additional District JuGg:e, 
and the terms of settlement suggested by the latter were not i'ull y 
carried out. 
Accordingly, the proceeding \Va~ re-opened and the 
report was re-submitted to the District Judge who with his opinion 
forwarded the same to the High Court. The High Court suspended 
the pleader for 5 years. 
It \Vas contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no 
valid reason for reviving the proceeding, after it had once been 
dropped on the submission of an apology and expression of regret. 
Held, th?t the report under s. 14 of the 
Legal Practitioners 
Act is a report which is sub1nitted to the High Court. 
When a 
report is made to the 
High Court by any Civil Judge subordinate 
to the District Judge, the report shall be made through the District 
Judge and the report must be accompanied by the opinion of such 
Judge. 
Once the report has been made, it is not open to the Gist· 
rict Judge to send back the record to the Subordinate Civil Judge, 
and no order passed by the Subordinate Civil 
Judge can have the 
effect of terminating or bringing to an end the proceeding. 
The 
High Court alone is competent to pass final orders on the report. 
A member of the Bar is an officer of the Court, and though he 
owes a duty to his client and must place before the Court all that 
l..'.an fairly and reasonably be sub,nitted on behalf of his client, he 
also owes a duty to the Court and must 
uphold the dignity 
and decorum of the 
Court in which he is appearing. 
Making 
imputations of partiality and unfairness against the subordinate 
Civil Judge in open Court 

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