In which of the following landmark case the advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct as he had forged the Court order?

Option A: Pratap Narain v. Y. P. Raheja

Option B: Vikramaditya v. Smt. Jamila Khatoon

Option C: Babulal Jain v. Subhash Jain

Option D: Smt. P. Pankajam v. B. H. Chandrashekhar

Correct Answer

Option: a

Explanation

In this case, Shri Pratap Narain filed a complaint before Delhi Bar Council against Shri Y.P. Raheja, advocate. The respondent was an advocate acting for the complainant in a case. It was alleged that respondent handed over him a forged stay order while no stay order was passed by the Court in the case. The Committee after examining the facts, evidence, etc., held that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct of serious nature. He has forged the order of the Court. Consequently, the Disciplinary Committee ordered removal of his name from the roll maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi. The Committee made it clear that no lesser than the aforesaid punishment could be imposed as the professional misconduct was of a serious nature. In Noratanmal Chaurasia v. M.R. Murli, the Supreme Court has held that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966 but misconduct envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

Sample Mock Tests for Practice

UTTARAKHAND LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 121 TO 160)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 20 Q. NO. 761 TO 800)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 316 TO 350)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 70)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2022

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 11 Q. NO. 401 TO 440)

UTTAR PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES G.K. EXAM 2018

MADHYA PRADESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019(1)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019-2

HIMACHAL PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2013

THE LAW OF TORTS (PAPER 02 Q. NO. 46 TO 90)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 201 TO 240)

AILET – National Law University Delhi Entrance Test (NLU 2018)

MADHYA PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2001

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 03 Q. NO. 81 TO 120)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 02 Q. NO. 36 TO 70)

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (PAPER – 17 Q. NO. 641 TO 680)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 14 Q. NO. 456 TO 490)

THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 7)

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 06 Q. NO. 176 TO 210)

UTTAR PARDESH LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES LAW EXAM 2018

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949 (PAPER – 14 Q. NO. 456 TO 490)

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2000 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 13)

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (PAPER – 04 Q. NO. 106 TO 140)

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 13)

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Paper 02: Q. 26 TO 50)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 05 Q. NO. 141 TO 175)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 09 Q. NO. 321 TO 360)

THE HIMACHAL PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 2011 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 16)

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (PAPER – 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 40)

MAHARASHTRA LOWER JUDICIAL SERVICES 2019

THE HIMACHAL PRADESH URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT, 1987 (PAPER 01 Q. NO. 1 TO 30)

THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 10 Q. NO. 316 TO 350)

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (PAPER – 13 Q. NO. 481 TO 520)

DELHI LOWER JUDICIARY 2011