LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Baijnath v S an Advocate of Unao    

Cases and Articles Cited

Case Name	Citation(s) †	Court	Jurisdiction	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
62 Ltra 61	62 LTRA 61		United Kingdom				2
11 Own 23	11 OWN 23		Canada - Ontario				1
Air 1932 All 536	AIR 1932 All 536		India - Uttar Pradesh	circa 1932			3
Air 1930 PC 144	AIR 1930 PC 144	Privy Council	India	circa 1930			3
Air 1929 PC 283; Air 1923 PC 16; Air 1925 All 389	AIR 1929 PC 283	Privy Council	India - Uttar Pradesh	circa 1925			3
Oudh BAIJNATH v "S" AN ADVOCATE OF NAO (SB) 1934 the parties We cannot grant interest, necessary to make appearance for other as interest, in the absence of a contract party a misconduct In order to prevent counsel appearing for the but we cannot overlook the fact that the other party, he must have a definite retainer, defendants have been in possession of with a fee paid, or he must have such confi this sum of Rs 500, which the plaintiff dential instructions from one of the parties as was entitled to claim from them, and would make it improper for him to appear for the other party : AIE 1932 All 536, Eel on that they have deprived the plaintiff of LP 59 C 1, 2] the use of his money We consider that G H Thomas, Pt Balkrishna Shukla, (the plaintiff is entitled to some compen J N Misra and L S Misra;--for the sation and the amount of compensa Crown tion can best be calculated in the same Order --In this case proceedings were manner as interest is calculated We taken against Si an advocate of Unao, on may refer to the remarks made by their the complaint of one Baijnath, who had Lordships of the Privy Council in Hamira charged the advocate with professional Bibi v ZabaidcL' Bibi (2) The learned misconduct The case was sent to the Munsif allowed the full claim which Bar Council for inquiry under S 10 (2), was based on a calculation of interest at Bar Councils Act, by an order of this JRe 1-8-0 per cent per mensem from the Court, dated 9th December 1932 The date when the money was advanced up Tribunal consisted of three members, to the date of the institution of the suit namely, Mr Bhagwat Prasad, Subordinate Th learned Subordinate Judge dismis Judge, and Messrs Rai Bahadur Babu sed the appeal The rate of interest al Ram Prasad Varma and Saiyid Ali lowed by the learned 'Munsif was the Muhammad, advocates Mr Bhagwat rate of interest alleged to have been set Prasad was appointed to be the President forth in the promissory note We can of the Tribunal not uphold the decision of the Courts Ther		Privy Council	India	circa 1916			1