Pleaders' Conduct Evaluated in Court Proceedings

The court found that Pleader D.P. Chakraburtty did not commit any professional misconduct as he was only retained for one day and fulfilled his duty. Pleader R.K. Bose was deemed to have ceased practice and did not appear for a hearing, leading to no further action taken. Pleaders Rajani Kanta Nag, Preo Nath Roy Chaudhuri, Annada Charan Roy, and Surendra Kumar Nag were found guilty of grossly improper conduct for neglecting court attendance during a hartal. Despite issuing a warning, the court decided not to take further action due to the unique circumstances but emphasized that such behavior would not be tolerated in the future.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Professional Misconduct of Pleader D.P. Chakraburtty.
2. Professional Misconduct of Pleader R.K. Bose.
3. Professional Misconduct of Pleaders Rajani Kanta Nag and Preo Nath Roy Chaudhuri.
4. Professional Misconduct of Pleader Annada Charan Roy.
5. Professional Misconduct of Pleader Surendra Kumar Nag.

Issue 1: Professional Misconduct of Pleader D.P. Chakraburtty
The court found that D.P. Chakraburtty was retained to make an application for one day only and duly performed his duty. Since he was not further retained in the case, there was no professional misconduct on his part. The reference concerning D.P. Chakraburtty was discharged.

Issue 2: Professional Misconduct of Pleader R.K. Bose
R.K. Bose, the pleader for the appellant, did not appear for the hearing and was involved in a hartal that involved a boycott of the court. Notice under the Legal Practitioners Act was served upon him, but he did not appear to show cause. The court noted that R.K. Bose had ceased to practice as a pleader and had not taken out a certificate that year. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to inquire further into his case or take any steps in connection with the reference.

Issue 3: Professional Misconduct of Pleaders Rajani Kanta Nag and Preo Nath Roy Chaudhuri
The Subordinate Judge reported that these pleaders committed grossly improper conduct by not attending court and neglecting their client's work during the hartal. Both pleaders argued that they were not instructed to attend court on the specific date and claimed that public pressure due to the hartal forced them to abstain from attending court. However, the court found that they were asked to attend court and refused due to the hartal. The court concluded that their actions were deliberate and in furtherance of the hartal, which aimed to boycott the courts. The court held that their conduct was grossly improper within the meaning of Section 13(b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Issue 4: Professional Misconduct of Pleader Annada Charan Roy
Annada Charan Roy convened a meeting at the Bar library where it was resolved to bow to the popular will of the hartal. He did not attend court on the day fixed for the hearing of a suit, resulting in the adjournment of the case. The court found that his actions were in furtherance of the hartal and constituted grossly improper conduct within the meaning of Section 13(b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The court noted that he had a duty to attend court or make arrangements to protect his client's interests, which he failed to do.

Issue 5: Professional Misconduct of Pleader Surendra Kumar Nag
Surendra Kumar Nag refused to attend court or sign a petition on behalf of his client, Azam-ud-Din, due to the hartal. The client's application was dismissed for default as a result. The court found that Nag's refusal to act was due to the hartal and that he had not given reasonable notice to his client. The court held that his conduct was grossly improper and that he had failed in his duty to his client and the court. The court emphasized that his actions were in furtherance of the hartal and constituted misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Conclusion:
The court decided to take no further action in respect of the references, considering that these were the first cases of their kind, the pleaders had resumed work, there was strong public feeling at the time, and the pleaders may have acted in haste. However, the court issued a warning that such conduct would not be permitted in the future and could entail serious consequences.

---