Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2001 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (10) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURTWhether rule 11 of the rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala under section 34(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961, is binding on the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, and if not, whether the Disciplinary Committee was justified in ordering that on account of the disqualification under rule 11, the appellant could not be allowed to appear, act or plead till he gets himself purged of the contempt by the order of the appropriate court? Held that:- The respondent-advocate continued to appear in all the courts where he was earlier appearing even after he was convicted by the High Court for criminal contempt without being objected by any court. This is obviously on account of the fact that presiding officers of the court were not informed of what happened. We, therefore, direct that in future, whenever an advocate is convicted by the High Court for contempt of court, the Registrar of that High Court shall intimate the fact to all the courts within the jurisdiction of that High Court so that presiding officers of all courts would get the information that a particular advocate is under the spell of the interdict contained in rule 11, until he purges himself of the contempt.
|