Summary
The appellant was an advocate of this Court. A complaint was made by the District Judge Delhi against him on 29th February, 1964 to the Bar Council of the State of Delhi alleging that he had mutilated a document by tearing two pieces from it while examining a judicial record in the courtroom in the presence of the junior clerk. The Bar Council of the State of Delhi referred the matte, to its Disciplinary Committee. The explanation of the appellant before the Disciplinary Committee was of the Judges and the staff of the District Court, Delhi.He denied that the document was important or that he mutilated it.He asked for summoning the torn document and the pieces but onlythe document was received. According to the District Judge the pieces were misplaced and could not be found. The Disciplinary Committee held the appellant guilty of having mutilatedthe document on the basis of the oral evidence of the junior clerk. Theappellant, thereupon, appealed to the Bar Council of India but the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dismissed the appeal. His appeal to this Court under s. 38 of the Advocates Act was also dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The appellant filed a review petition before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India but it was rejected. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) challenging s. 38 of the Advocates Act and r. 7 and Or. 5 of the rules of this Court as ultra vires Art. 138(2) of the Constitution. The writ petition was admitted and a rule nisi was issued. Meanwhile this Court in dealing with a review petition filed by the appellant had issued a notice to the District Judge to find out the torn pieces. The District Judge reported that the mutilated document was a copy of the lawyer's notice and that only a small piece of half inch was missing from the bottom of the second page.
The pieces were not traceable. He also reported that the junior clerk was not sure that any thing was written on the torn pieces but according to his recollection the words'true copy' followed by the signature Vir Bhan' were written. This. Court dismissed the review petition on September, 26, 1966. Thewrit petition in the High Court was also dismissed by a single Judgeon October 12, 1966. In the proceedings it appeared that the document in question had not been relied upon by the party which had filed it. A letters patent appeal was filed against Single judge's judgment and order. Before the Division Bench the validity of s. 38 of the Advocates Act alone was challenged. The Division Bench dismissed the ,)peal butSee the full content of this document
Extract
O. N. Mahindroo VS. Distt.Judge, Delhi & Anr.
PETITIONER: O. N. MAHINDROO Vs.RESPONDENT: DISTT. JUDGE, DELHI & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/1970BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)MITTER, G.K.RAY, A.N.CITATION: 1971 AIR 107 1971 SCR (2) 11CITATOR INFO : RF 1980 SC 674 (8)R 1983 SC 990 (9)RF 1983 SC1125 (7)APL 1989 SC 245 (12)ACT: Advocates Act 1961, ss. 44 and 10(3)-Review-Bar Council cannot review aecision of Disciplinary Committee- Disciplinary Committee's power of review-Grounds for review need not be similar or analogous to those found in s. 114 or 0.47 R. 1 of Code of Civil Procedure Principles of antre- fois convict or antre- fois acquit also not applicable Review petition must be dealt with objectively-Review by Supreme Court, considerations for-Appeal to Supreme Court under s. 38 Advocates Act, Scope of-Professional misconduct- Proof of.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 2637 and 2638 of 1969.Appeals by special leave from the order dated July 12, 1969 of the Bar Council of India, New Delhi in Petition dated January 17, 1969 at item No. 42 of 1969 and from the order dated October 4, 1969 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in Review Petition No. 2 of 1969 respectively.C. K. Daphtary, A. N. Mulla, Bishan Narain, W. S.Barlingay, and O.N. Mohindroo, for the appellant (in both the appeals.).M. Natesan, Uma Mehta, D. N. Misra and B. P. Singh, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 2637 of 1969).A.S. R. Chari and B. Datta, for the intervener (in both the appeals).The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidavatullah, C.J.-The appellant in these two appeals is an advocate any of this Court, who on complaint by the District Judge, Delhi, 29 February, 1964, to the Bar Council of the State of Delhi, was held guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for a year by the discip...
See the full content of this document