 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Advocates Act, 1961 38. Appeal to the Supreme Court - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36 or Section 37 [ (Note:- Ins. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.27) or the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State concerned as the case may be], within sixty days of the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may pass such order [ (Note:- Ins. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.27) including an order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India] thereon as it deems fit : [ (Note:- Ins. by Act 60 of 1973, sec.28) Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.] Comments: In an appeal under Section 38 of the Act this Court would not, as a general rule, interfere with the concurrent @page-SC113 finding of fact by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council unless the finding is based on no-evidence or it proceeds on mere conjectures and surmises. Finding in such disciplinary proceedings must be sustained by a higher degree of proof than that required in civil suits, yet falling short of the proof required to sustain a conviction in a criminal prosecution. There should be convincing preponderance of evidence. Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. The Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 110    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back