1996 AIR 98, 1995 SCC (5) 716
Civil appeal No. 7872 of 1995, decided on September 1, 1995
Advocates on the case:
Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General (Uma Nath Singh, Advocate with him ) for the appellant
S. K. Bagga and D. V. Sehgal, senior advocates (Ms S. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms Tanuj Bagga and R. B Misra, Advocates with them) for the respondents.
JUDGES ON THE BENCH:
B.L Hansaria, JJ
LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLIED
- Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948
- Madras Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act 1951
- Section 5 of tr federal trade commission act
- Section 14 legal practitioners act
- Industrial disputes act
- Section 15 contempt of courts act
- Article 139- A (1) of the constitution
- Section 9 of the U.P sales tax act
- Article 215 of the constitution
- Article 226 of the constitution
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On 2nd September 1993 pursuant to a resolution passed by the taxation bar association, Agra one research Chandra Gupta, advocate and president of that association along with two others met respondent.
Satti Din, the appellate authority in his chamber, accused him of demanding illegal gratification in discharging his duties as an appellate authority and dissatisfaction duties widely prevailing among the advocates.
The advocate was attending the court with a licenced firearm for the purpose of self-defence. Allegations and counter-allegations of hurling abuses against each other were made resulting in widespread violence. It was held that some of them have been involved in violence.
Crimes have been registered against each other. A petition was filed in the high court for the issue of a writ under article 226 for restraining the offices. Satti Din from discharging his function as deputy commissioner under section 9 of the U. P. Sales tax act. This order of the high court was challenged before the supreme court.
The supreme court held that the High court has no power to prohibit the authority from exercising the statutory power.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Was the high court right in prohibiting the authority?
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:
The order of the high court was challenged before the supreme court. The question before the supreme court is whether the high court at the instance of the advocate and the bar council could prohibit the quasi-judicial authority from discharging the statutory duties. The supreme court found the service record of the offices.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:
The supreme court held that the high court has no power to prohibit the authority exercising the statutory powers from discharging statutory functions. In this case, the advocate was attending the court with a licensed firearm.
He pretended to provide himself with the revolves to shoot in the self-defence. Such conduct was taken inconsistent with the dignity of the legal profession.
The supreme court allowed an appeal against the order of the High court. It was held that such behaviour by an advocate is inconsistent with the dignity of the legal profession and amounts to professional misconduct.