Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-22-1954
Reported in : AIR1955Ori65; 1955CriLJ823
..... united mills limited, for 6 years, was guilty of gross misconduct in having accepted a brief for the plaintiffs debenture-holders and filed the suit on 14-5-27 against the aforesaid company. the high court of allahabad suspended him from practising for 4 years and further passed an order that the legal ..... can affect a third party who is condemned in costs. the arrangement does not appear to be contrary to public policy and there is no act under which it is made illegal'.there are rules framed by the government regulating the relations between the advocate-general and the state. the advocate- ..... a legal practitioner. this proposition has nothing to do with the questionbefore us that whether, on the termination of the proceedings under the l. p. act, if the court finds the legal practitioner guilty, it has power to award costs.5. on a consideration of the above features, and particularly relying ..... following the decision of the privy council laid down the proposition in unambiguous terms that in a proceeding under sections 14 and 15 of the legal practitioners act, a subordinate court has no power to award costs, but the high court can, if it deems it just, itself pass an order for the ..... clearly guilty of gross misconduct in the discharge of his professional duty and, as such, he is liable to disciplinary action under the legal practitioners act. but on account of the reason that the pleader is an inexperienced junior lawyer an order of reprimand was thought adequate to meet the ends of .....Tag this Judgment!