LexMR. 'C' versus THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Tk Election Commission oj' India DasC.J. 1957 May6 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] constituencies and different dates have to be fixed for holding the actual elections in different constituencies according to the various exigencies relating to the particular lccalities in which the constituencies are situate. No good ground has been established for holding that there has been anv discrimination such as is prohibited by Art. 14 of the Constitution. In so far as the alleged discrimination, if any, in breach of the equal protection clause of the Constitution may be said to be calculated to raise anv doubt in connection with the election of the President it will, at best, be a non- compliance with the prov1s10ns of the Constitution which may or may not, after the conclusion of the entire election, be made a ground, under s. 18 of the Presi- dential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952, for calling the election in question as to which we need formulate no final opinion at this stage. We express no opinion on the merits of any of the controversies between the parties, but, for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the present petitions are premature and cannot be entertained at this stage. We, therefore, dismiss the petitions Nos. 63 and 64 of 1957. Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 563 and 564 of 1957 will also stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed. MR. 'C' v. THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MADRAS (JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA and GA JENDRA- GADKAR JJ.) Professional misconduct-Advoratc borne on the rolls of a l--!igh Court and Supre1ne Court-Debarred by l-!igh Court on Bar Cott:1cil's ref;ort-Sumnions by Supreme Cottrt-Procedure-Supremc Court R;des, 0. IV, r. 30. The appellant, an Advocate ,vhose nan1e was borne on the rolls of the Madras I-Iigh Court and of the Supren1e Co11rt, \vas found guilty of gross profes.sional misconduct by the 1vfadr:Js High Court on the report of the Bar Council Tribunal and debarred from • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1093 practmng in that Court. The charge against him was that he did not utilise a particular sum of money entrusted to him by his client to clear a mortgage in order to secure a clear title for him in completion of a transaction of sale, for that purpose. nor account for it. The appellant preferred an appeal by special leave and this Court, being apprised of the order passed by the Madras High Court, issued a Rule under r. 30, 0. IV of. the Supreme Court Rules. It was found by this Court that the charge against the appellant was fully supported by a large volume of: evidence on record, both oral and documentary. Held, that the appeal must be dismissed and the Rule made absolute and the appellant's name removed from the roll of Advo- cates of this Court. I It is a great privilege to be an Advocate of this Court and only such persons as can satisfy a very high standard of integrity of character can be enrolled as such. An Advoi:ate who is found . to have fallen from that standard and is debarred by the High Court cannot be considered fit to practise in this Court. Proceedings under r. 30, 0. IV of the Supreme Court Rules should be treated as a natural sequel to proceedings in the High Court under the Bar Councils Act and although an order made by the High Court under that Act is not to be automatically followed by this Court, it is not necessary that this Court should start a fresh inquiry on evidence. It would be enough for it to generally examine the record prepared by the Bar Council Tribunal and take into account the findings nf the High Court based on such report. Reasonable opportunity must, however, be afforded to the Advocate of being heard against the action proposed to be taken against him and adducing such additional evidence as this Court may think proper. The Attorney General or any other Advocate representing the Legal Profession generally or the complainant or the aggrieved party may also be heard before the final decision is arrived at; In the matter of an Advocate, Case No. XVI of 1942, decided on March 23, 1943, In re: D. A. Slianmugasundaraswami, an Advo- cate, Misc. Case No. X of 1948, decided on January 24, 1949, In the matter of Mr. 'G', a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 490 and In the matter of 'D', an Advocate of the Supreme Court, (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1006, referred to. CIVIL APPELLAT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.