Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (5.28 seconds)
Documents citing Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs Bar Council Of Maharashtra, Bombay And ... on 20 October, 1983

Inder vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 April, 2001

In Dattatraya v. State of Bombay, validity of detention of Dattatraya (petitioner) was challenged on two fold grounds including one that the State Government has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 11(1) of the amended Act as at the time of confirming the detention order it omitted to specify the period during which the detention would continue. After proper understanding of Section 11(1) of the aforesaid Act the Apex Court observed as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - K S Rathore - Full Document

A P Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 2020

In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 556, this Court held that "...there is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A S Sangwan - Full Document

Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:51 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Kalpesh Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:01 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

N Sampath Ganesh vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:31 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 4 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Hari Sankaran vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:20 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

B S R And Associates Llp And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:42 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020

- (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 471 for this purpose. ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:10 ::: HVN 57 93-- Sr. Advocate also states that judgment reported at An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India -1989 (supp) 2 SCC 25 supra has been rendered without looking into the larger Bench judgment reported at P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikram--AIR 1964 SC 244, and other judgments like S.A. Venkataraman vs. Union Of India-- AIR 1954 SC 375, Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra - (1984) 2 SCC 556, Gulabchand vs. Kudilal-- AIR 1966 SC 1734.
Bombay High Court Cites 229 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Gautamsheth Kisan Wadve And Anr vs Kisan Gangaram Kale And Ors on 29 July, 2020

59. We are constrained to observe here that Mr.Ajinkya Udane, learned Advocate, who has put in his appearance on behalf of the Occupant only for filing of the consent terms, has not tried to safeguard the interest of his client, who is not familiar with the nuances of law. Though in a different context, the role and duties of pps 101 of 139 TRIBAL WP ST 1338 -20.doc the advocate towards his client is well described by the Apex Court in Panduang Dattatraya Kahandekar vs Bar Council of Maharashtra Bombay & Ors. 1984(2) SCC 556 as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 107 - Cited by 0 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next