Category: ADVOCATE

Praveen Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [MPHC]

That lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored.

M. VEERAPPA Vs. EVELYN SEQUEIRA AND OTHERS

Suit for damages against counsel due to loss and injuries suffered on account of negligence in conducting professional duty – Held no exemption can be claimed by a legal practitioner – Legal practitioner may settle with the person and the fee to be paid for his professional services but he cannot claim any exemption from the liability to be sued for loss incurred by his client due to his negligence- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – [13-01-1988]

Whether appointment of an advocate as a Government Counsel is an appointment in Government service

the appointment of an advocate as a District Government Counsel under chapter VII of the Manual is an employment and not a professional engagement of an advocate and, therefore, the advocate is entitled to automatic renewal till he attains the age of 62 years prescribed in the Manual as the age of superannuation unless his record and character roll are not up to the mark.