MOHINDROO Vs. BAR DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate raises the question as to the scope of entries 77 and 78 in List l and entry 26 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

(2.) The question arises in the following manner:

(3.) On a complaint by the Subordinated Judge that the appellant, while taking inspection of the Court record in an arbitration matter pending before his Court, had mutilated the copy of a notice in that record by wilfully tearing a portion thereof, the District Judge, Delhi filed a report against the appellant before the Delhi State Bar Council for taking action under the Advocate (Act, 25 of 1961 hereinafter refereed to as the Act) . The Disciplinary Committee of the said Council after hearing the appellant found him guilty of professional misconduct and ordered his suspension for one year under S. 35 (3) (c) of the Act. An appeal filed by the appellant under S. 37 before the Bar Council of India failed. Thereupon he filed an appeal against the said order under S. 38 in this Court. The appeal was placed for preliminary hearing and summarily rejected at that stage. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) for quashing the said order of suspension, the order of the appellate authority confirming the said order and the order of this Court dismissing the appeal. He thereafter filed a review petition against the dismissal of his appeal contending, inter alia, that rule 7 of 0. 5 of the Supreme Court Rules was ultra vires S. 38 of the Act. The review petition also was dismissed.