The Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order and Rules, 1972

Professional and other Misconduct

On the basis of Ext. 13, a resolution dated 2 1.5.92, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct by the Bar Council Tribunal — When the resolution book of the Joypurhat Bar Association was first produced before the Tribunal on 2.12.93, it was not marked as exhibit, only the impugned resolution dated 3.5.92 was marked as Ext. 2, since it was resolution book, it was given to the Jimmy of the appellant being president of the Bar Association. Again being directed the resolution book was produced before the tribunal on 6.1.94 and thereafter on 30. 3.94 the resolution book was marked as Ext. 12. When objection was taken to the resolution dated 2 1.5.92, it was marked as Ext-13 — the findings of the tribunal, this resolution dated 2 1.5.92 is an act of forgery by substituting new pages in the resolution book seeing the writings and pages of the resolution book, since the resolution book was taken back by the appellant and he also refilled the same before the tribunal, he is liable for this forgery — the findings of forgery is absolutely based on presumption, supposition, hypothesis and surmise and there is no evidence to show that the resolution dated 21.5.92 was forged and fabricated by the appellant after he took it back from the tribunal on 2.12.92 — appeal is allowed. [Paras-6, 11, 12 & 13]

S.A. Alom Vs. D. Golam Nabi & Anr 3BLT (HCD)-1

Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order

In a slipshod manner with biased attribute towards the Advocate

Suit was for Partition and one Badsha Mia was one of the defendants. Appellant was engaged as his lawyer by Badsha Nha. Subsequently Badsha Mia died and his heirs were substituted. Heirs of Badsha Mia filed a complaint petition alleging that the appellant got .26 acres of suit land purchased in the name of his wife Mrs. Lafly Begum during the pendency of the suit, yet he continued to represent the heirs of Badsha Mia though Laily Begum had conflicting interest against him and that the appellant did not return the documents of Badsha Mia to them—Held : Ext. A is the registered sale deed dated 30.12.68 executed by Abdul Majid in favour of the appellants wife Mrs. Laily Begum whereby Abdul Majid sold .26 acres out of the suit land to Laily Begum during pendency of the suit. It is stated in the sale deed that Badsha Mia sold .26 acres of land to Abdul Majid by a registered sale deed on 13.4.60—we hold that the learned Advocate did not commit any professional misconduct in representing several defendants separately In the partition suit having no conflicting interest among them. (Para-61)

Abdul Hamid Advocate Vs. Bangladesh Bar Council & Ors. 5 BLT (HCD)-11.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.