a BAR COUNCIL CASES i cASE — 1 (Negligence ” conducting dase) .c.tppeal nlo, te(taag A vs R 25) 1948 IBR (B51 1 poe cockddia’ Chdaeran) Melinde aloes bouleales | cp, singh (Member J Tadpemeict pak on 5 hel iaas acts oF THE CASE Sed |= complarnant has ees ave sateved sale bead coille an epinion “to repurchase a house ¥ eitaated in Deevauall: BB illage fvcur ef one Lanka Sambashiva Reo However the | ool ern coebraae) to be ih pposeeteticny Ant eajogmeit of pope Nendo ee attempt to rie possession oft the mroperty Poretbly iy cellusiie vite “the police ang complasnes i eee ran Boca woud « See | that ‘is Regondent at os nb. etles alee ae fled a Countey curt at 06 No. gales agomst—the complairait 5 = 0s no sales was pod on 24-4.91 forthe exannitshisa Sf Phila on Q5-09. 180 the Responelert epvetaterrctospenaie com lade Peper ta Os lo. eale5 only om promited to Hake adjournm on 2-0. lAq1. = Responder —Aawoaste dente Et of He complem | ‘ont ail complarract “fer nen pawmeit of Cour" Pee th 03. Ne. aa eq. Raceep ons | Going< "CASE =2 ey a by ae, Allegan get eld Ave R 241884) taa9 (BR 20> De Appeal no. uaftaas. Dv er Gh Lseae eel bes ak. Capel Hf - listens shale (membs =) * ln dated 124 Mary (944 Latkex mse (othe she — He cASE. a, Complat nat {1 led a Comp! Lact belowe the “in tha x tab cox tain seg inthe form of com esses ‘1 do i bythe rn Th vfo i Mistendack ea a a rae at Issug, —thattheve was no nexus eee by ca os a lego andthe ap Voustoug es) ae TS Omang ine juriacliation 4o 7” tothe ornare ofthe case. Te Dee af 2.R.C accepted —ths Cartection ee pe lo a a te | or red 2 ne bs aig tS a Suplosaion ¢ Tn thir clause, vesston ‘edate’ hall have es a ed to d iat top of the Ronald Ja diequalrpeatie oor cove a at it after the bonkrw jt y | ky—He aa not accept ° bral fron a Company nv, j which be ka reser! B.c.2 observed tat this dele haste be ily Ra ragabi manner having Ve vd tothe ob ing this i aay oprni on of the Bey t ohpeat of framing thie yu info probibe an ~From oppeasing in a Cavin w etter te pe wnitevert = beable tS affact ~the onte of betes as ant Hdveex br stat Case. ORDER. ; Thevefeve RB-ol y Leld~tne wdc. eke andl heldtrahthe soul? No. | was ast quit, of Miscondurt Both the Recpondiant toe we (ila not of oe andthe appral oes pion Ah the complaint appeared to be wholly mala died lent oppean 2 feb od aye lente views 8-0. ele st, “; powlies.CASE—14 (Lowering the Dimntty ol the profession) nLast vs MRs (6(864) 19eq BR 592 | ae: “Appeal No lofiase. ay Rajay Bh cabernet eh N. ae al ehevi ti R hae (Members) aye 1 oh pated 26 rlovenber lage- pacts ae cASE complarna er Cage > The Repent ft heute ill le praabicng os an-hdye eat ae neltes livence fev oe On eortak sh his name-He ew. ree BA: arva Ux and wanning tht s ‘lege ourta: te csstonnaen ait e sould Z Ab. mM aleor aa Me Ju. nol case > ld ey Reg Pew admitted pt the \teence fern ue axratk cube “nt loool ee ceniae choise a unntng tha. businesc:. Ne he Cathew and -brethey feet gebless inthe sthew +e hel p there he Ohlone d Hes ce fis he exe eerabex A. neil | | | fiPtiae, veloc wo was helping ate Honber by Bsurng Suer ites Litence. in ha hame . PRoe EEDING. ‘ “The Bax counerl fmed tefollowng heuer , Wy Whether the Respenelont hws attained licence he ] rame ai benamichy for bis father and brother? jb ulhether lendwrg name evr the purpose of Gtting : | or leense ov yunnmng arrack shep eenpleh anole q te popessional Mis condurt 2 ‘ b> 2 Se .qurehoned what gabadea Rule uy ofthe all of Bay Cane ts veer mnt | aa hn alisusbes call not Ertl engage a ee ee sossy nate i lorng Mess, provided that iy the opinion of the appropriecte edette Baw tonal nabare of the | pie ale moet! orth the i % ' ofthe ae", 7% af Prpallact har expressed bis wegreh ancl abo. | pred for mereras 4 Se ha be ewould bein | | tebess as rt eiuld be veny chfpiealt for hin obo | Sepport the family consisting of wife aah b iSL A sats Se plan 6. roy ued . Suspension ' Vee a ae wn LkWen melee, ih - I ( to lye Ww oy ch llega aeliv tes 0 -fatere- ; | onder: | the arlene of —the De of the tt 4. Counc [ Qus ercnq the poche of “the Reg per | Co Jos Bb Yyeaws twas (ee eo = en at end {wl the Same was wei telatCASE 15" Ceanduet trbeoning of on “foots ) Neg ve Kv (62) 1994 IBR O5¢ De Ap al no. ty lage: chet. Bal Pajpaye pr ee and sles. Shinar and ae Rl: Rangaway oe . Fada eneat Taser azplember 9 (PActs of te CASE ; Comploraal Cage Complainant: cas aap of -ofhcoust ard i Bo Suey member of the bev witk 33 years © exported on 2 November 486, at abeat LSopr sohen he cvas ong othe Baw Asccetction the Rependert fdvorale tnforne homctra he had made a mention of a Case before the Fa Pathab case the Complamant ve econted peli ones andthe Respondent represented the Reso ett therin in the capacity of a bela a complernact eatdatradt he tal ho nélite of te mention and that She will cee i. oe ve ere lala tof srtact Bry veasen ar jac abused the Comploirnsct all cml vulgav deaths: Resp nage Ud , We Res filed he defence denying the allegiine trader tr th complantt te entndll nd|, weton gd auisas teller meme any posted below LL, cand to—this the complarnacl card the * he ewill don. Jone a menacinaliy Gpltoes atte . Smeette Com aplorat bet cord Hat he wall'sen! aru weforred ats hom ‘ my ot ong ore ieve cuas Kat exchange words belizean then » Bee pevey used any abuse longa 9 agemet te camp lemmas {> | pRoceeDinle. ot oa tie ag afte parti Slice (CMa eer ee) | —folleew ing ques si | Uy lathethen the respondent use) alate language. agen | the complasvath by Wthethor the ese altrese ewords amouited te Professor mis conduc? The spe-ound otk -the tesues agonal te Resperdlst- and teurd Ae ail °. at We apology Comp ERE Brees rthe b.cot SBc passed ones cuspen dong “the Respordedt from proithic aley Be period ot spe atic: Zin the Cxvag—exammaben a augneshion was mabe Soe complarnant that he al Game perso Cases undexthe urban land ceiling fat and ha. oppreached the Res mi ts Grout. pleadeEn he eviclence te veeperclert state tral hag Son was anAdvocte onthe bar of a Stan ip alll hence he Os aPpo Bia Government plradan| | “fe He Resporea! ee endoved eons | appele 4 aval Saiawets 2 gibon m e to th, rt appeared fy Comp mont rothe ovose ecamnahen + Tf : Row counch| atthe Respendeit ewos Re ley pvepen & tor ie oii ve. F ORDER. De af the BC. { Upheld the pails of aime of Bc Sasmscelicfuleh seh aside te are : Ba veprmarded aia Reepardeat er Se F (5 ov the of fence pera by hereCAsE- 6 ( conduct of onbetaming of anshelteelp Rh vse Ms (ely 19¢@q_ 1BR %4 Bet Case nl. 16 /19ee. ales L-Bhaw-gag (ihe, ss el N. Rangasray Bl abs ant. e (members) ~ Tedgement vated [6% oclober (tee: fects OTS ag Case» — Was st alma court Compourd neay the offi ice. ofthe Reaper Abies a lia oe icccly of «aba 4 ae Ton pean Poa a Ne Cons. nn oy at pe ee Gon bis tte He ‘eae her 9° @ Conlesn with the junior ofthe Resporelet fo the comp lavrm it coulel approach “the place, his i leg Junior Aduceady hee dheapp ee Loon het ae Sth