Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
Council Of The Institute Of Chartered ... vs Ajay Kumar Gupta on 28 February, 2012
16. Learned Advocate
for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court
in the matter of Council of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta, reported in [2012]
171 Comp. Cas 441 (Delhi). In this judgment also, the punishment
awarded was to remove the name for a period of six months. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that a similar view, if could be
taken and if the punishment could be reduced to remove the name for a
period of six months.
Council Of Institute Of Chartered ... vs Mukesh R. Shah on 11 November, 2003
(emphasis supplied)
18.5 Last but not the
least, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent invited attention
of the Court to the fact that the Appellate Authority relied upon a
decision of this Court in the matter of Council of Institute of
Chartered Accountants Vs. Mukesh R.Shah, reported in AIR
2004 Guj. 164. Paras-20 and 21 of the said decision are quoted
by the Appellate Authority in its order.
Chandra Shekhar Soni vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 July, 1983
5. There has to be a
limit to which an Advocate can identify with the matter and pray for
the consideration of the appeal favourably, which otherwise not
required to be considered by this Court in view of the decision of
the Hon ble the Apex Court in the matter of Chandra Shekhar
Soni Vs. Bar Council of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1983 SC
1012, wherein the Hon ble the Apex Court observed as under:-
Section 38 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 21B in Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Pandurang Dattatreya Khandekar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra, Bombay & ... on 10 October, 1983
In the case of P. D. Khandekar v. Bar
Council of Mahrashtra, AIR 1984 SC 110 at 113, this Court said,
"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. .... For an advocate to act towards his
client otherwise than with utmost good faith is unprofessional. When
an advocate is entrusted with a brief he is expected to follow norms
of professional ethics and try to protect interests
of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust.
Counsel's paramount duty is to the client. When a person consults a
lawyer for his advice he relies upon his
requisite experience, skill and knowledge as a lawyer and the lawyer
is expected to give proper and dispassionate legal advice to the
client for the protection of his interest."
V.P. Kumaravelu vs The Bar Council Of India,New Delhi & Ors on 4 February, 1997
12. Learned Advocate
for the appellant also relied upon a decision of the Hon ble the
Apex Court in the matter of V.P.Kumaravelu Vs. The Bar Council of
India, New Delhi & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SCA 1014. Learned
Advocate for the appellant invited attention of the Court to
paras-12, 13 and 14. The same are reproduced for ready perusal:-
1