DOCTORS MUST KNOW THESE LAWS BEFORE STARTING THEIR PROFESSION.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

T.C.Mathai & Anr. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (1999) 3SCC 614. Date of Judgement: 31.03.1999.

                        FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of   Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Co...
Read more

Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. M/s Jacks Aviation Private Ltd; (1999) 1 SCC 37.

  (Case regarding boycotting a particular court) Date of Judgement: 13.11.1998.    Bench:   S.Saghir Ahmad,   K.T.Thomas.     Judgement: Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the Bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial   functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear. But unfortunately this case reflects apathy on the part of the High Court in affording such protection to a judicial functionary who resisted, through legal means, a pressure strategy slammed on him in open court.    It all happened in the...
Read more

L.C.Goyal vs. Nawal Kishore (1997) 11 SCC 258.

                                Date of Judgement: 09.01.1997.                 (Issue of Bogus Cash Receipt by A.O.R. to the Client (Court-fee)                                                        ORDER   This appeal filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is directed against the Order of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 24.6.1983 whereby  the appellant has been suspended from practice for a period of six months.   1.   FACT OF THE CASE:-          The  appellant  was practicing as  an   Advocate-an-Record in this Court.  He  was engaged by one Nawal Kishore (the complainant )  to fil...
Read more