http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER: Mr. ’G’, A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/05/1954
BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MUKHERJEA, B.K. BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM JAGANNADHADAS, B.
CITATION: 1954 AIR 560 1955 SCR 501
ACT: Indian Bar Councils Act, (XXXVIII of 1926), s. 10(2)-Whether order under s. 10(2) may be oral-If High Court can act" on. its own notion."
HEADNOTE: The order under section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, given to a proper officer of the Court may be an oral order and need not be a written one. The High Court can under section 10(2) refer a case on its own motion.
JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 254 of 1954. Under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioner in Person. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (G. N. Joshi and P.G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondents. 1954. Mai 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-This is a petition under article 32 of Constitution and raises the same question on the merits as in the connected summons case in which we have just delivered- judgment. The facts will be found there. In the present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right. But as a matter touching the ju...