https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186262 Section 15 of the Advocates Act was read as conferring broad rule-making power on State Bar Councils to regulate elections, functioning and the tenure of office-bearers, including a no-confidence mechanism. Rule 122-A was treated as a valid democratic device for loss of confidence, not as an impermissible punitive removal provision, so the challenge based on ultra vires and excessive delegation failed. The Court also held that the amended M.P. Rules were valid once approved by the Bar Council of India, and that prior notification was not a condition of effectiveness. Procedural objections to the no-confidence resolution were rejected, and the resolution passed in the properly convened meeting was upheld. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2023 09:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186262 Section 15 of the Advocates Act was read as conferring broad rule-making power on State Bar Councils to regulate elections, functioning and the tenure of office-bearers, including a no-confidence mechanism. Rule 122-A was treated as a valid democratic device for loss of confidence, not as an impermissible punitive removal provision, so the challenge based on ultra vires and excessive delegation failed. The Court also held that the amended M.P. Rules were valid once approved by the Bar Council of India, and that prior notification was not a condition of effectiveness. Procedural objections to the no-confidence resolution were rejected, and the resolution passed in the properly convened meeting was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186262