Bangladesh Legal Practitioners And Bar Council Order And Rules, 1972

 

Bangladesh
Legal Practitioners And Bar Council Order And Rules, 1972

 

Article—40(1)
(3); 10(j); 40(k);

Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, Section—115(1)

Article
40(1) of the Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order and Rules,
1972 empowers the Bar Council to make rules to carry out the purpose of this
Order and Article 40(3) provides that until rules are made by the Bar Council,
the power of the Council under this Article shall be exercised by the
Government. Article 10(j) empowers the Bar Council to perform all other
functions conferred on it by or under this Order while Article 40 (k) empowers
it to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions.

The
expression to carry out the purpose of this Order’ as employed in Article 40(1)
includes power of appointment, removal, dismissal etc. of the Employees of the
Bar Council. No doubt, Article 40(3) authorises the Government in absence of
framing of the Rules to exercise the power of the Bar Council but Article 40(3)
does not oust the power of the Bar Council explicitly. According to Article
10(J) of the Order, the Bar Council is vested with the authority to perform
functions conferred on it under this Order.

Bangladesh
Bar Council Vs Basiruddin Ahmed, 21 BLD (AD) 83

 

Article—34(6)

Suing for
compensation

After
examining the signatures it was found that the signatures of P.W.2 in the
deposition sheet and in the sale deed are of the same hand and the Court held
that the complaint petition is malicious. Under such circumstances the
appellant may sue for compensation.

Abdul Hamid,
Advocate Vs. Bangladesh Bar Council 17 BLD (HCD) 547.

 

Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order and Rules, 1972

Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council
Order and Rules, 1972

Professional
and other Misconduct

On the basis of Ext. 13, a resolution dated
21.5.92, 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 21.5.92. it was
marked as Ext-l3—the findings of the tribunal, this resolution dated 21.5.92 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
aback 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 2 1.5.92 was forged and fabricated by the
appellant after he took it back from the tribunal on 2. 12.92—appeal is
allowed.

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