Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 89 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing N.G. Dastane vs Shrikant S. Shivde And Anr on 3 May, 2001

Noratanmal Chouraria vs M.R. Murli & Anr on 16 April, 2004

In N.G. Dastane V. Shrikant S.Shivde & Anr.[2001 (6) SC 135] an advocate in order to defend one of the accused persons before a magistrate sought for adjournments repeatedly and on 4.12.1993 an adjournment was sought on the premise that he was unable to speak on account of a throat infection and continuous cough but the complainant came across the said advocate "forcefully and fluently" arguing a matter before another court situated in the same building.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 36 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Abhijeet Singh Alias Ankur Likhari vs State Of Punjab on 28 May, 2019

"54. Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons are there, the Trial Court, should not adjourn the matter on mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors., [2001] 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastance, v. Shrikant S. Shivde and Anr., [2001] 6 SCC 135.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 7 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Veer Gurjar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 1 October, 2019

"54. Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross-examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons are there, the trial court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh [2001 (4) SCC 667] and N.G. Dastane versus Shrikant S. Shivde [2001 (6) SCC 135 ."
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document

Shadab Ansari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2022

In N.G. Dastane case the position was reiterated. The following observations in the said case amply demonstrate the anxiety of this Court in the matter: (SCC p.143, para 20) "20. An advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct. When witnesses are present in the court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. We remind that witnesses who come to the court, on being called by the court, do so as they have no other option, and such witnesses are also responsible citizens who have other work to attend to for eking out a livelihood. They cannot be treated as less respectable to be told to come again and again just to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. If the advocate has any unavoidable inconvenience it is his duty to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who are present in the court. Seeking adjournments for 18 postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in court even without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of an advocate's duty to the court as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also a professional misconduct."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Prosecution/ vs Sri Sumit Banik on 15 February, 2022

In N.G. Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 135, in paras 20, 21 and 22, it was again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no adjournment can be granted due to the absence of the learned engaged lawyer and it amounts to abusing the process of the court by the advocate which amounts to misconduct and it is the duty of the Bar Council to refer such matter to the Disciplinary Committee. 17.8.
Tripura High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A Lodh - Full Document

Council Of The Institute Of Chartered ... vs P.C. Parekh on 14 February, 2003

(c) The decision of the Supreme Court in N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde AIR 2001 SC 2028, which was rendered in context of the provisions of section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, by which the State Bar Council was empowered to refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee when it had reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, was cited to point out that, it was held by the Supreme Court; The collocation of the words guilty of professional or other misconduct has been used for the purpose of conferring power on the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. It is for equipping the Bar Council with the binocular as well as whip to be on the quie vive for trading out delinquent advocates who transgress the norms or standards expected of them in the discharge of their professional duties. The central function of the legal profession is to help promotion of administration of justice. Any misdemeanour or misdeed or misbehaviour can become an act of delinquency, if it infringes such norms or standards, and it can be regarded as misconduct". The Supreme Court held that an advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of the misconduct.
Gujarat High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next