THC BR COUNCIL

bere
F STAT& OF ASSAM

plinan om bor ountil

Atm

anda Cho d Y

AD

Kume

AIN h e Complainant ladqd a complaist w h ha as.

Coun a Rpondent advo cali Hld o ta a

aint he plaanr amd alio rvu lllu horm

Jahom
rep

in coe nde tEua

NOTICE pon a
Coplaint no:
93 a ai

Kuma Takunia betfore be

arepond tn D. Achyt appcar
P ommtllee.

ePLY To THE NotIC The nspondent qowe a rpl Be ndhee a n

d adidawk and slalz thar a q aHems were tM uy amd bauleas.

T S OF THG CASE The espondent advoca wa nót haw in

d relaion wch IK Compla-nant who was an emplo Cenra

men and al so his nuqh bor The npondemt aduocal tlud a

r a l k Case against her and alse rótu a leltu b her Cmpojeri & harm

a
lel s
laHon tn her depalkmet. He al o
and au e iangan n ks wn
T amt onFanima
hana Em
 6S )) whelher .
heaher he

thc Piaanant.
rtpondent ad-vo Ga u a
al co**

hethe te
the
rponan adwoca. wa
the awkor

see he
repoont In waness where of w r
Contan aleteu o
v
vuar and autoe
teha a pitun in ii Cwn languon w
wkto9

The
wITNS *"pomdant aoeaE.
was
and pumd 9ui
mucona a
a
pt**
ormt. The Bar
Falje tae agais Be
omplaine
oun hua bat
at aAi wpondunt
don pr simal
mif torduut

RDE

dipan **** up*ndd hon hom

o mnha ana
paacha For a
bn Rt . lo, ooo-
paqakt tå 2 man'hi.

8
 BAR Of TAT

wranile U Bar

evender Sg soa

ender * Chaui,

T The
pondest al*" tat t o
K elec matybait n rt
ppllat odars cali
a

peh c in- i s t

None at b uhe
pend t kosd
lanant v da cax o.
l-qdi
4s and he
td oPpee tore B ommiilee.
r4ponddt *

NOTICe:- The
respordet aduuca
p .
he
fng otbidaMet stama hat ail-qeiens en
fai
The
TE F THE CAse efPAlcnk aduo ca i prac o

* Cout
Punjab Ond h e a lnan is

Reipordent. Th
* me bna the moi
Compaint uat Ks. b a - Per o I
e Complant Ehat h e
Ppelant sloppa T d
Be respondent and desp
npealts nquet a
c a paid s him. Otimee he sponda. ha

pe bm
aqain1t he
repond int-
i
he
alled [ha dun9the Ccure 4aid
mt
e learn Rent Comtot, the oppelak torj ai tuot
ctis
sued by ku elechd
eapondenk or Paan o c &a
 Thal e aat e cedvea q nl Com pronte *dna7
a n d
q4 amd whn? ae wni a t p r Ka Coen

adro a foyo F. dama

nenh
be
PPalom
es:
contRGl pru i onal rnlitand
h e
h he ac
(

t deeru again it
be ofrlaa
attemaa
Proe *
nur
h Cummatta

d
Kat
wo
foumaby
ma

TN . he repondnE produead k forg4 douwnn

uo

aoaam
Md n a
thamng
thnk G rspondn
Cout
*e
a"y
to3"7
ke
elkcte c bali.
qul

huld a oppelant a r o cal 3

he
dacplinat umm Ctla
DER kim on Prace
tor T"
amd upmdud
Po
6***
*mit on duak
Bar Counua Tndia. T
P*
e
b RS*
lA
an aPpra
hnas B apdlant
Rud
a
a
an
afr
fror
puns hmeaE
aridu (ha ordr.
appa for Stug
 BAR
cOUNCIL OF
STATG OF
TON4ANA
Disp*
Conl o
Caundl u
Tedangona
D e
2014

ion Enakur

Jas*" Flor
R.

The Bar
p he
coune Slalz dy
Tlang ena ond Andhra
adsh,ase 6201 Dnapncng
201

1961.
NG
Commle, chapli no:
Aduo a

The nóh uat

k acroea genval
u 3s)
AdDtas t, \961
Nk, \161 a kk
a o
N
p lma mtstondu.
isS boi parbes.
hes

HE NOTIcE e
repond mt Callu abient
a Served on
her
,Thou
lednohe wa
acknosld gmen d. n
ndem was E« pati and malter
wa pala Psident
4 Bar Asieiahion,

cTs OF THE CAS he awa haa no pract Omd had

reve bleA am " ca aha in CM or Crtnme Couut. She Comes

an the Cot amd chawes ver incd ecenly in Cout hal. Her

haw1 r outfda IR CoArt ha w a n t s l erasl o h< Bench amd

a
4 She uted G Call and stdd
a advo calks in
ruhy langua
CE
Cwe daz omd
Cauims ot
druu bl caeh ond
eve
AMwgeal. twTh her behawiour.
 heher the
pondemt has cornmld any pr inol

he iabu fov
anz PAnihmunt

w a s lakd [hat
prwiout, k ar tto od
ndad Oe pondunt d G he ms condu ond mubekauirr.
ad

ro mor a
humbur Bar asto iah.
she

TNESS Cr widenca as h a the

* y ku adwo eal
d s e gant
solds
pukde who wair in Laut pronlna*o
She n h
we araE og h Fdlowmg poceduru
was ns

obenr Namaiker: K Bench and was al to Cau ing n

tnI C o u when he enchs gokng she u a sho p p a

& I ado cal omd other adw caa had worn her

geveral oc ca ssiEms but the did nat change her a

Lwhen K t woca**
xAm NATiON Ber Coume enammd
he Dre
Cr
9 P ciumal mi Conduet
wines he
Gn cal
ho had
alrad m keu gainit
rpondne aluvw ea. she failed dis preve he allea ahunt
werc tamed on her.

ak ahmt on her, he
OROER la
kang ino ConsideraNon o allea
Comm (ta tumd hu u z or p r e o n a mu Cendua.

adwocat and
ortk cpntun ha she
unbr Consnue as an
a uch her neme be remd frn th Rsts o e r Con
ndr Sechun 35(3) (d) s the Aduoeal. Act, I461
 BAR CoUNCIL OF OTTAR PRADE SH

ary Commla "t Sor Counul

A Uttar pradesh.

BCT
V a u m o r

AD

Complainant r. allgd hal K

CortpLAIN T1 Vja kumor
esponder Advocal. Mr. Aja Nigam i erercmg p s s u e on i

dag h a . matn kim omd fabricalid a FIR aaint him

NOTICE pm a complaint iu Vide C a n ne: 126, #he repond

a o aPpear be Foe he di tipLmary Commllea dirp"oVe

all 9^m

he notfce On

pyo C NOICO
The
*pondene qae p
til he albidau 4lan9 a e a en erc o faly tala

e
he
p a Ta
"har
repondemE
CTs OF THe cAsC
advwat exeruing pre on auht* 6 *mamy imindulg

ldla.
in indecent behawivur, pho
h*at ama
tor

the amd Ri
doughi twhen
Te
dent fur Cc PP planct
on
oand
mit behaued
ik
Ken, so a

(ha were travl

Gave at
d
he
spondent ä pera
Cminal

hai harassud
IR
wkich läls Aat rondent e xua te
Complainant's dd3 amd the wes pre bajtd on i i aut
 ( h The
Jscue pondt ndual fa talid "

I R

2)
Cnhnuatin huu alla
Jehrasnad
Coull fhou ene ord placad dtasee
Ca

EVID CNcet The

or ogtra) Fip a prodst nd a

Ora and docunnlay eduna tota da he a r a

ia***
claim. h dah o e Complainam tat. i h
thc she had niti2nd on i dat ornn **

he
pond nt doca oi foumd
2 pT"
tJITNC
mOna amd alleyd Ihe ku spond nt ExeraA **

hdd Far
he tlaz
Compiana al g Ge amd IE Sa ounl d
poO" Comm (llud

fuuund Hha rtpord r

CXAMINATI ON( On cxaminahn , (t wo
ddra

a was foumd
b qu Thoug e spond v
a o
om
denia alg a m i ranca
w

rcord ad djpuray mt
on
Bafea on
doumm
ORDER' Cndend ama
mt
ha hu rspond ent w. 3uilt doIku
held
ormd
b 4
ered for his
uspn simt
te
yeors
en Pre'a
ord
C be pac a he Coplaran
R. 5,ocb e so
impo ed
 THG BAR CoUNCIL OF STATC OF
FORG

UTTAR PRADE SH
The
n a r ommilae
D r s p l e n

Bor counu
u Utta pradet

BeTWCEN

Konla Prasaq

Ap

Balde s h a Raibq

CompLAINT; The Ca was hud by Sn. kanlha Presed, Cva Judg

Movena a a i n hc respondent adswca Baldw sha Rasog fir

neson Ppann? n e Court on b r h a l y r accaRA

Jell as he
CoplaianE.

NoTICC A hoRe was isued ( rspondemt t despn

alle cum and appor before the diuiplnery eomml.

RPLY ToTHC NoTIca The respondent hed q a rpz alomg

d a memo ra ndum ob aPpearanc bofk behel oF he
on
complamant
of menionea Co se

FACTS OF TH CASE A Cminal a e wcs fhd under Sec 3 80/41

at Marera pálce stahm, D&or Praaesh by one Si Arevind kuar

against Sn' chand , V ý a shah amd Dsngh The respond em aduo cau

appeared for all he thre alte mentnd accura penov when F

were presenfea before he marigoE M o n awa and meva an

ppe cakm pr Do Ghe ie Perions

 G hae
taA
welh pondmt advuca s

mifconduc

for
hek
und
radi and couum/anus, tt is imperahve
r or tfv k cau the sl Bor Gu
plainant
ach on.

bahag
adwotaE
viDe Vakeletnama
Vakele
hud
by pordem
is(k aoa J
a cae

ComP**** ma ripondunt

(hc espondm adroca PPc

sals
whh

Pales C Cas
he bo

adocea has cdmaud

he
all
pondmt
h e

o
orf
h
he
e
ccc A
al
basl
Ppc cah m
for 9rent a
he
ha
on Dehdb ( Complanant
a
a

na bee pesna aqcins the P ° * *

o o e

Pt5S
ORDC e he
Commlka

at hela .t
and r

adwro ca

Condu
 B GFORE
BRCoDNe
BAA
StATC OF DELH

Comma Bar Couna a Delhi

D s

BrOEN

Nare 3

.Rohga

Pralap Nar hud a

Conplaint
oLMNT:
The Compias nene
Qocal YD. Rabj uwa r t
that h pond unt
de wo:
a Sla ordr,
Du no
la
handd
ouer
fro
and

I court.

ppear
A nóe uwas ISsued h
reepondernt adro ca
NO m.
md dLsprove
the
alle9aims mada
he Commtlle

o he ndhu was in e
unl to
RepLy To THE NOTICe
and he also sialid Ehak he aalc9ahs we Ffale and beaa

THE CASE hee

Complanant e a pOd*
ACTS OF
a ce. The respomdent adaro cal
nfemd te
Complarane
wDa
a t hos pasd a s a ordr ond handed over ( domne
the roa
emplanamt Lale e Complainant eeme knou
la adwoea houh
ondh
ado c a . |
T him
b o respondunt

SuES
() LWhelher [he respond emt adwocuE has bcen n a s a *
e Cam
opanont. orde & h
pciher over a
rT fta
pondenF hand ed
mplainant
 *

poof
De NCE The
forqd "Order Copy i tuthrcunt

ore
handed oves
by the
retpondunt was
plod
Corm °7** omplainant.

vnt awo a
e retpond
Thee w a qainit
ITNESE proptr n 4 s Conduuda
fae amd
The
commei xaminu al the wnei a d **
eu
forqa oPT °
hor pendent himceh hamad
ommille opm n
The
uwCh
wa no pacteo y Ik Cou.

ord er rspond vmt

he

hat d
if is clerk a one
d
, (hen it wa I har
he

held
Commtee
The
inom he Same couwt. aponf(btt
and
In hu rplg
made by K sjpondnt
asuran
order
the Comp lainan
for nandna over the torgad s[ay

e rponden aduv ak
paisea
againiE
ORDER- Am order has bun Delk.

he rolle oy (k» Bar Counc

hcme was removed Frum
ao
h
GeFORe THE
BAR CoUNCIL
HE BA OF STATe of
MADHHYA PRADE.S
The Pispohan olnen Commillt Ber Counu ay Madhya Prodeth

BeTEeN

R.D Saxena

ram Pro-sad harma

Bal

be ture

twas bld by he mplasnont

CompLANT
he Complaant
Paron
advoca
hat h rupondent
e Bar
couna dr slalz alleqmq
Shaa wes quil
miseonduut for ndt rn'ng
Praiod
Cok bles o hs Cient

he rtpundent
adwoca
5 prove
hdhe uas itsud
A
NOTICE Commtilee.
he
made on hin 6e fore
8he alle4ahons

rpy
The spondent q n Urllen
To THC NOTICe ana tale
REpLy baselers
wer

hek the allegkong

hohee stakmg
Lgal
as ppoed a
The respendunt
6ank. te wes
FACTS OF TrG CASE operahi
co-
eh sl s

Y
Madhye prad
cae
k o
e bank
at
a part
Hhe
ali
by K bank
num
Aim
enqaqd ad
ueslea
M

l e m n a a
Concoldaad

kh bank
Lali
he respondent 2awe
h bs, belena
Trslcod as lku
Cae bes. Rt 93 lco|
amount O
an

benk skocng bank bilu4

e
b t

manaT7
r e l r

d
TThen, Ehe
m u n u a t n .

ca.
adwo
dent
te pum
Complaint
a9
a
 (k adaocat can
ien k litgaho Pat
ssues 0 oelh
Nn
b his cne or fee.
tl condut.
Pruteccional
mis
(
helhe Ihe advocak quag
(2
before

whah he appelamt subm ited

n
rp, exerena 3*
EvIDEN rnturnd
as he
nd
ha K As were

commlta that he has 3

saG
eam such bles and he al to
de
i (k dues are dean
os Len
srerain
the Bis
Bank
(

were
ndr re med
* h a
Case
bles
wITNESS- &
rdah ueh
s
hat sueh a ight
adAocalek elamed
our t rum blee o * * *
amd led
Cxer*
s
rgE db e n
is made.
the pojmm
taas
adroeal
that tk
Commttee
hud
The direoplnan
RDE R misconduuk amd a decre ha b pesa

5proecsicmal
T
he adus c a
against
 SFORG T B* COUNCIL OP STATE OF UTTAR PRADesH

he Dispuna Comm(T d Bar councl a Uttar Prodeth.

BeTLEEN

Tek ehand

AND

Promoa u m a r Chauwdan

The sk Bar
CompLNT Complamamt lodqd a cormpladnt
CouneAl al q r hat k espondent adoca Mr. Pramed Kunar

Cho da oolt a um Rs 2,oov]- for hp in execukn dr l c a .

He has n i i e r exe cuted he \ea nar nlamad kis menT

NOTcC A n6He wos icsueal he respondent cPPca be fore

the Commtllee ond disprve the alleaaioms made on him

Hhe nóhe was n wnilltn fom

NoTICC- The repy
R6PLY To THE
amd also statid hat he all eg aims ere falce and bepelecs.

adoca toslt a sum

ACTS OF THE
CASe! The nespond ent
from R Complaanant for hdpon
erecuHon
d leae
Rs 72,oos|
elakans d k addHemad Dissek Masralzz
as he had good
The ork done or o and mom hor mea by Ik responmdent

ok a um d Rs. 2ooo|
ISsuES: (1) The epen demt adwo ca
uadmg amd
from Ik Complaman for negoiaing the lae
the amount.
whelke he wcs qul n d E rming
mlsGonduct.
emt was 9uil d
(2) whe lher ke respond
EvIDCNCE l receip'ë d ke anount (aken °* **

ndent and R amount taken for execukon h was

respond
ca
produaA the Discplmans Commlee.

bod
TNESS The e spondent did n 1 ke h n6te d
he

Cnd rtnd back Gs he Coudd n u Come o e Coust

healh cnal aa

Peent olong wuG 2 wanes ses fron peso

Cornplanane
in proce T
that he respondemt was no Co-operakng

adourment sduspope the cae,

Cook

rAt

the a d u o c a l
and na
An Orcder was pessks agaiost
ORDER
tC.s mevd from k rolls the Bar counctl
 THE BAR
CoUNCIL
G EF O R E

OF
STATE OF
UTTAR
he Displnon
nent ommallee PRADESH
OBar Counc 6 Uttor
pradesh
TWEEN
Be

Swrendra Nalh ttal

AND

Dayanand Swa

CoMPLANTI- he
Complaint Mr.
Surendra Nalk Mtta loda
a
Complane a that the
respondent adwocaG M.
Daanand
cop hadl
forqea the order
copies.
NOTICE- A nGkce was issued the
respondent aduo ca Mr.
Dayarad
Sworoop basd On lhe
complaint qen by he
Complanant Mr. Surerdra
Nalh Vide cae no: 63 and aked the respondemt appcor beee (Ke
Discaplmang Commtee s disprove he alleqahams made on him.

RepLy TO THE
NOTICE: The
espondemE aouo caf qawe rpl for ke
Complaint CormplananE and fed an aPplicaion stalia Kar The
decreta Short o Rs. 4*4°| base on
culerpólaH om amd al so the
respondent aowocal aPpeer betore Ehe i r p n a n CommGtee

FACTS oF THE CASE c co"PiaAnant a Camplaint un

Sechon 35 d kduocal Act, 1961 alcamg hat the respondem

aswocaa has masa inierpolanm tn he judgment amd decree bu

acdng he w r eM
s M sooo"shich mans
nedng inlire st eTKu
in his own- hand wrihng or olherwen which were nst kere at he

Etme the Prparann

of Ke Judgmne
 he odvocab handad the
() whe her pondunt aar

order
tKe Complad nant.

2whe
her er K
IRe
e spondent acwocai A quil a potesiomod rnireu

His
To add Hhe o words in ewidente where b
EVIDENce The

amd alto in
detret.
pomom d} he Judgment
adda in
opera
opera

clerk
s nethr o the presidmg teer
har
i
orh har

applieahon ttaHng
responcl ent ftled
an
Thus, (he
toncemed.
Cor

s bad on outi púlann.

decrelal shot o Rs 4740|
the

found qu pet
respond emt aawo ca
was
The
har
WTNESS hdd
CommCitee
bar Counl Or diriplinan
The nalus.
miscond dr erou
iaklu fir proherstonal
ms Con due
adwoca
respondnE

adwocal.
ar
quig dr prubesticnaa
at ke
was held
I Cout an4
ORDER order

Serus
nai torgmg Ehe
misconduek or a
staT Bar Cound
neme fron c
removal d his
hene o r d ered tör

enrsll.
OkE T
HE AR CoUNCL OF STATE Of PUNTA6 MD HRYANA

n e n Commel
D . s p l
O a r Counl n Punjob ond Honyna

BEeeN

Kurmar Sharm
P a v e n

A N D

Gun Da Simgk%

oMPLAINT he respondent R1ud a onplaint allegtng tha

and he hod a t
awca was dotna " Taxi Bunes"
appellant
devan me tour axis in his ownership.

M. Paran kumar Shasma fhed

NOTICe poa Complaint
Comp laint vide cau no: 3407. A nice a s iscued he respande

ppear be ore he dereiplnany ommCee.

RepLY To THE NOTICE The respond ent aduoca had 9ve rp*

the nóta by l n an abtidaart stahng thak he allasims ere

olally falu.

aduoca had kämu/enrlles

FACTS OF THE CASE-
The appellemt
Bar ounca. At IKe
as cn adwvca wk k
punjab amd Haryona
Taxi butines".
tme when so enaled kaml his faml was
deme
awnd b u fáKles.
He himlb als
ar he adwoca& could ndr
Hence, Complaint faed
a
oplaint aleg?
ka laxt buseness uhou (he pemisslen of Bar
hawe Caed on

srnce uch penisscom db busCness had Geen btaincd

Counc amd

by hin. He uwoukd ne ocEn

3 db
commteng prsesstonal mis
Rled waK ku sl t Bar
em dut. The Complaint
wa4
initauy cunc

but m c e
it coula nor
D p0sea cihB a
peñod o n e year from
Complaint, he Cae as
ransgemmd G a r Councl o India.
the dal d
95
 C whelRer he
Tssues appellant advo cale'i act d
oumg axis
enrSllln 4 n
aoo al amouní prohesstanal mtsconduue

NCE
eviDeN
Houwever, lhe evidence avatlobl was reformed by slai
Counc and Could ndr
duspua tk cat udhn
aperod d r
Arom IK ga Conp laint, beCaue d shteh he ac (s meart 6 be

ranseme o Bar CouneA on Indla.

There Faxis
wITNESS was
proper utness IKa adw ca cund

In his nome The Bar o u n o India hare and he etdenee led

te wel a s h a t ar
Psehalb b Cemplanant as a the
appellant sho
the enrllnent wes meda by himcel waK punjab amd Hanena Bar

Counel.

Hhak Re adwoda wa
Di CommdT hetd
ORDER The ciplinan
uiy probestional misconduut and hel hlm a k a br prstartianal
mégCondut.
 RE TH BAR ooNci CP STATE oF MAOHYA
B
PRADESH

DispLnan commlle o Bar Counu d

Madhya Pradtth

S ha
Ke lam

AvD

R.N. T u a t

e
ConpL T pondunt aduoeno M. R.N. Twan showrd on

ak da on behal hs client usho uas an accund tn a Cmma

Ca

NOTICC' A nóhce
uas issuad the nspomden G
depe
all eq atinns made
by Cornplainant Mr. kean Shah
be fore K
dsreeplsna*
omnlu vide Cak no: 9

RaPLy To THE NOTIce The apendent adrecalo awe rply fr t

Caop laint amd hled an elbdauit hng Kat K allegahiors tse

Falu a d baces.
ota

FACTS oF THE CSe Te pondent adcca was d e k n d n g (K

atria Coult. *ceka G lemcad o dea agaim1t

wen repondn b am Pped be fone iK Hgh coust a Madhya

Pradah. suadin reponden bhd a w i t pakiHon th

Cout along o Periomal atoidani om beha (K accued for

beller Crealmem Ja whercn he mada a slaitmanE admithmg

w n l e n opp ann dd opreEnt ( iaid t u l r , even

a k l daut was * ° oncerne4 advoca wh

veu,
in
permissUMa a
IssuE S st C)
()cwheIKer Chehe Ke responad emt adwocnt. has shoun

affrdait t he Presen Cc.e.

w
Lohelker app ellamt client has instruefd hin 3euend

al dawit

vIDE NCe wheIke as lhe was no uch inslrucher b

rir wen
H uch ont apple cah m t Hhe said
alleqed
5

K whh was nst pemits

alk' dont sSorn
by appelart
a
ve maller waK Kes he respon dent had bled
any d
k appellant fer proecsion
al ms
tan daetbeore
Com
plamant qaintt
Commlle a saiz Bar Coune
K dir nany

aduvcal wa Rund qudGy B a r

wITNESS
The respondent
adurocasds ncme
wa
Councsl Sta alleamo that k re spondet
an
Bar rdls Thn (K ePondent pr d
rom Ik staiz
emana

Indka.
Ik Bar Counc) a
Ppea
coumcA oroderd
C k slai Bar
The desuipunant ammci
ORDER the stasc Bar rsl.
appellant
aowDcala
name fom
for remval d
betee he Bar coumca o Inolia
T appdlamb Pertom c an
appea