GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. SIDDICK H SHAIKH
LAWS(BOM)-1929-3-5
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 26,1929

GOVERNMENT PLEADER Appellant
VERSUS
SIDDICK HSHAIKH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application under the disciplinary jurisdiction against Mr. Siddick H. Shaikh, a district pleader holding a sanad for the Surat District. The charge against him is shortly that he had been guilty of improper conduct under Section 20 of the Bombay Pleaders Act inasmuch as he sent various 1929 circular post-cards to the public with reference to the examination of accounts of wakf properties. These post-cards are signed by him as High Court Pleader. They are in the form Exh. C, and after stating his address and the date are as follows:- Respected Sir, Greetings. His Honour the District Judge of Surat has authorised me to examine the accounts of wakf properties and to issue certificates. Accounts in respect of wakf properties should be filed in the District Court before June 30 every year. Fee for examining the accounts is one per cent, on the annual income. Shaikh Siddikbhai Hajibhai, High Court Pleader. It will thus be seen that the pleader gives his address and description. So far as the description goes he is not entitled to call himself a High Court Pleader. He is only a District Court Pleader, But apart from that, it is important to observe that he refers to himself in this circular post-card as a pleader.
(2.) Next, as regards his statement that he had been authorised to examine wakf properties and to issue certificates, this is inaccurate. The statement means, I think, that he had been given authority to audit the accounts of wakf properties generally by an order of the Court under Section 6(2) of the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923. In fact, all that he had been authorised to do was to examine the accounts for certain specific wakf properties on his separate application in each case. No general permission had ever been given to him. He had asked for it, but it had been refused.
(3.) Next, in his affidavit of March 25, 1929, which has just been handed to us, he says in paragraph 4:-"He never meant to say or convey that he had general authority to audit the wakf accounts as distinguished from special authority." We think, however, that the fair meaning of the post-card is that he represented that he had this general authority.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.