TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct for continuing business activities after enrolment as an advocate. (ii) Whether the punishment of permanent debarment from practice was disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct for continuing business activities after enrolment as an advocate.
Analysis: The evidence accepted by both Disciplinary Committees showed that the appellant retained and continued business interests in a photostat centre, STD/PCO booth and coal briquettes concern even after enrolment. The record included documentary proof of allotment and continuation in his name, witness testimony supporting the complaint, and failure to establish the claimed oral arrangement by which the business was allegedly run by family members. The concurrent factual findings were held to be supported by cogent evidence and not shown to be based on no evidence or conjecture.
Conclusion: The finding of professional misconduct was upheld and remained against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the punishment of permanent debarment from practice was disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
Analysis: While sustaining the misconduct finding, the Court considered the nature of the misconduct and the appellant's handicap. It held that permanent debarment from practice was unduly severe in the facts of the case and that the punishment required moderation.
Conclusion: The punishment was reduced from permanent debarment to a bar on practice up to the end of December 2006.
Final Conclusion: The disciplinary finding was maintained, but the penalty was substantially softened, leaving the order otherwise undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent disciplinary findings of professional misconduct based on cogent evidence will not be disturbed in appeal, but the punishment may be modified if it is found to be excessive in light of the proved misconduct and surrounding circumstances.
TaxTMI 
