https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287617 An advocate's post-enrolment involvement in taxi business was examined against Bar Council rules prohibiting personal engagement in business, while permitting only a safeguarded sleeping partnership and limited non-executive corporate office. Professional misconduct, being quasi-criminal, had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed only that taxis were owned at the time of enrolment; it did not establish that the advocate continued the taxi business after enrolment. The advocate's account that the business had been wound up after enrolment remained unrebutted, and the complaint did not prove post-enrolment business activity. The charge of professional misconduct was therefore not proved and the disciplinary finding of guilt could not stand. en-us Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:38:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287617 An advocate's post-enrolment involvement in taxi business was examined against Bar Council rules prohibiting personal engagement in business, while permitting only a safeguarded sleeping partnership and limited non-executive corporate office. Professional misconduct, being quasi-criminal, had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed only that taxis were owned at the time of enrolment; it did not establish that the advocate continued the taxi business after enrolment. The advocate's account that the business had been wound up after enrolment remained unrebutted, and the complaint did not prove post-enrolment business activity. The charge of professional misconduct was therefore not proved and the disciplinary finding of guilt could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287617