Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Advocate-General not "person aggrieved" under Advocates Act, 1961. Appeal incompetent. Disciplinary Committee order set aside.

        ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Versus HM. SEERVAI ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY

        ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Versus HM. SEERVAI ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY - 1971 AIR 385, 1971 (2) SCR 863, 1970 (2) SCC 484 Issues Involved:
        1. Competency of the Appeal by the Advocate-General.
        2. Interpretation of "Person Aggrieved" under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
        3. Role and Standing of the Advocate-General in Disciplinary Proceedings.
        4. Impact of Summary Rejection of Complaints by the Disciplinary Committee.

        Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Competency of the Appeal by the Advocate-General:
        The primary issue was whether the Advocate-General of Maharashtra had the locus standi to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of the State. The appellant contended that the Advocate-General was not a "person aggrieved" as required by Section 37, and thus, his appeal was incompetent. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had overruled this objection and accepted the appeal, holding the advocate guilty of misconduct and suspending him for a year. The Supreme Court had to determine if the Advocate-General could be considered a "person aggrieved" by the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council.

        2. Interpretation of "Person Aggrieved" under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961:
        Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, states that "any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council made under section 35 may, within sixty days of the date of the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the Bar Council of India." The term "person aggrieved" is not explicitly defined in the Act, leading to various interpretations. The court examined historical and comparative interpretations of the term from Indian and British statutes. It was noted that the term should be construed in the context of the statute and the specific circumstances of each case.

        3. Role and Standing of the Advocate-General in Disciplinary Proceedings:
        The court examined the role of the Advocate-General under the Advocates Act. It was noted that the Advocate-General is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in disciplinary proceedings against advocates. The court considered whether this role conferred upon the Advocate-General the status of a "person aggrieved." The Advocate-General argued that his role was to represent public interest and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The court evaluated whether the Advocate-General's participation and the statutory notice given to him implied a right to appeal as an aggrieved person.

        4. Impact of Summary Rejection of Complaints by the Disciplinary Committee:
        The court also addressed the scenario where the Disciplinary Committee summarily rejects a complaint. It was argued that if the Advocate-General was intended to safeguard the interests of the legal profession, he should have a remedy against wrongful summary rejection of complaints. The court considered whether the Advocate-General's right to appeal under Section 37 extended to cases of summary rejection and if the Bar Council of India had revisional powers under Section 48A to address such issues.

        Conclusion:
        The majority opinion held that the Advocate-General was not a "person aggrieved" under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court reasoned that the Advocate-General's role was advisory and akin to that of an amicus curiae, providing unbiased assistance to the Disciplinary Committee. The Advocate-General did not represent any specific interest or suffer a legal grievance from the Disciplinary Committee's decision. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Advocate-General before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was deemed incompetent. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found