Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
R.D. Saxena vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000
25. Hon'ble R.P. Sethi, J. concurring with the judgment delivered by K.T. Thomas J. in R.D. Saxena (supra) referred to the Bar Council of India Rules that an Advocate shall, at all times, compose himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar or for a member of the Bar in his non professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate.
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chitharoo vs Sita Ram And Another on 15 July, 2010
11. A perusal of Rule 39 shows that it is a rule of conduct providing disability to an Advocate to subsequently appear on behalf of a party in a pending case where the party is already represented by another counsel without obtaining his consent but Rule as such does not prevent a litigant from engaging another counsel without obtaining consent from already engaged counsel. Moreover whether a rule of conduct made by Bar Council to be followed by its members, would bind a litigant also is a question which has not been considered in the aforesaid judgment in Chitharo (supra). In any case, the aforesaid provision and aforesaid situation has no application in the present case. It is admitted case of parties before this Court that Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate did not file his vakalatnama subsequently during the subsisting engagement of respondent no. 4 but it is one and the same vakalatnama wherein Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate has signed as an Advocate representing the claimant i.e. petitioner. Such vakalatnama was part of application presented before the District Judge on 15.7.2011 when the District Judge after initial scrutiny registered the case. In other words, though Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate, presented application before District Judge, but along with application the vakalat-nama which was also presented by Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate, contained signature of Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate as one of the counsel for claimant. The signature of Sri D.K. Saxena on vakalatnama has neither been disowned by Sri R.M. Singh, Advocate nor disputed at that time. In the subsequent proceedings also Sri D.K. Saxena, Advocate has actually represented the claimant-petitioner.
1