Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bar Council of India Rules

14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14

BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 708Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined criminal appeals filed in the name of Bhagwan Singh, who alleged that his son‑in‑law and daughter had fabricated vakalatnamas, affidavits and other documents to lodge a Special Leave Petition and related proceedings without his knowledge, thereby attempting to falsely …

GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2024 INSC 558Disposed off

Gaurav Kumar filed a writ petition challenging the fees levied by State Bar Councils (SBCs) at the time of enrolment, alleging that the amounts far exceed the Rs. 750 (general) and Rs. 125 (SC/ST) prescribed in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that additional miscellaneous fees are …

CHANDER PRAKASH TYAGIversusSHRI BENARSI DAS(DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 971Dismissed

Advocate Chander Prakash Tyagi was engaged by Banarsi Das to seek guardianship of his grandson under the Guardians and Wards Act. The complainant alleged that Tyagi, after receiving a fee, colluded with the opponents and later accepted a brief from them to file a suit against the same grandson. The …

DEEPAK AGGARWALversusKESHAV KAUSHIK AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 44Appeal(s) allowed

Five candidates who were serving as Assistant District Attorneys, Public Prosecutors or Deputy Advocate General were selected for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Haryana through direct recruitment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed their appointments, holding that they …

BRIJ MOHAN LALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2012 INSC 178Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the status of judges appointed on an ad‑hoc basis under the Fast Track Courts (FTC) Scheme and whether they were entitled to regularisation or absorption into the permanent judicial cadre. It held that the appointments were expressly temporary, terminable at will, and did …

JAIPUR VIKAS PRADHIKARANversusSRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS.

2011 INSC 688Disposed off

Jaipur Vikas Pradhikaran engaged Advocate No.1 on a retainer to defend its land‑acquisition cases. The advocate also appeared for his sister (the wife of Advocate No.3) in the same reference case, thereby creating a conflict of interest which he failed to disclose. He did not file the required …

VISHRAM SINGH RAGHUBANSHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

2011 INSC 416Dismissed

Vishram Singh Raghu Banshi, a practising advocate, was found to have abused the presiding magistrate with vulgar language after the magistrate questioned his involvement in an alleged impersonation of a surrendering accused. The magistrate complained, leading to contempt proceedings under Section 15 …

R.D.SAXENAversusBALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

2000 INSC 409Disposed off

The appellant, a senior advocate and former legal advisor to a cooperative bank, refused to return the bank's case files after the retainership was terminated, demanding payment of alleged fees of Rs. 97,100. The bank filed a complaint before the State Bar Council, which was transferred to the Bar …

SUSHMA SURI ETC. ETC.versusGOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR.

1998 INSC 386Disposed off

Sushma Suri, an Additional Government Advocate with more than seven years of experience, applied for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) but was not called for interview. She challenged the decision, arguing that a Government Advocate remains an "advocate" under Article 233(2) of the …

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETCversusU.P. STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC.

1994 INSC 28Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Government appointed law officers and brief holders on contracts that allowed termination at any time without cause. The government later abolished the brief‑holder system and removed 26 law officers, prompting the officers to file a writ alleging violation of Article 14 and …

AN ADVOCATEversusB.B. HARADARA & ORS.

1988 INSC 307Disposed off

The appellant, an advocate, was alleged to have withdrawn a suit as settled without the client’s instructions, leading the Bar Council of India to suspend him for three years for professional misconduct. The Supreme Court examined whether the disciplinary proceeding complied with principles of …

SATYENDRA NARAIN SINGH & OTHERS.versusRAM NATH SINGH & OTHERS.

1984 INSC 156Dismissed

The appellants, members of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, filed a revision application in the Patna High Court which was to be heard by Justice S.K. Jha. They later engaged Shri Sailendra Kumar Jha, the son of Justice Jha, to appear for them, prompting concerns about a son …