Cases Referring to this Case |
Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case |
Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case |
Legislation Cited |
Cases and Articles Cited
Help
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
1
AIR 1916 PC 46
All India Reporter, Privy Council
Privy Council
India
Cases Referring to this Case
LawCite:
Privacy |
Disclaimers |
Conditions of Use |
Acknowledgements |
Feedback