News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Room No.323, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.a
 DCIT, Circle-Najibabad, Wahid Nagar, Najibabad Vs. Bijnor Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, Civil Lines, Bijnor
 Harish Kumar, (Huf), 5/21, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi – 110 021 Vs. Dcit, Circle 34(1), New Delhi Room No. 804, 8th Floor Bhawan, Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 002
 M/s Raman Kumar Sawhney, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi.a
 M/s. T. V. Today Network Limited F-26, Connaught Place, New Delhi Vs. Addl. CIT Range- 16 New Delhi
 M/s Bhandari Fibretech Pvt.Ltd., S-20, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), New Delhi.
 45 LPA-Opening Associate CFO
 ITD-ITD CEM JV Vs. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxesa
 Chetan Sabharwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 28 (1)
 DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., 1711, S.P. Mukharjee Marg, Delhi
 ACIT, Circle-22(2), Room No.226, 02nd Floor, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vs. M/s Schneider Electric India (P.) Ltd. 9th Floor, Tower C, Building No.10, DLF Cyber City, Phase-II, Gurgaon,

S. Baskar Mathuram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
August, 29th 2016

(i) The whole basis for instituting this writ petition seeking extravagant reliefs appears to be an unfortunate incident which is alleged to have taken place on 05.08.2016 in some remote rural area of this part of the State. It appears that some of the newspapers also carried a news item, on 07.08.2016. That inspired the writ petitioner to file this writ petition. It appears that he is a practitioner of law. If a practitioner of law is seeking to use the platform of High Court for purposes of gaining popularity and publicity, so that he will be able to attract more number of clients, if not the alleged victims themselves in this case, it would amount to an unethical practice of soliciting work on one’s part. When once the Code of Conduct is prescribed by the Bar Council of India to be always adhered to and followed by every practitioner of law, any attempt to overreach the situation and also to breach it, even in an indirect manner, as has been done in the present case, it must attract necessary corrective action.

(ii) We therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench to place a copy of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in this case before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry at Chennai for initiating necessary action for the breach of Code of Ethics and professional conduct by the writ petitioner. In the event the Bar Council agrees with our prima facie opinion that the writ petition is instituted by a practicing lawyer, seeking publicity and mileage for his professional activity rather than propelled by genuine desire to protect the larger public-good and interest, the Bar Council shall take appropriate action. We hope and trust that the Bar Council will be placing its ‘action taken report’ before this Court within a period of six months.

(iii) Often times, we have been noticing that the Print and Electronic Media is carrying on publication of the names of legal practitioners as well as the names of the Judges of the High Court concerned, who dealt with particular cases, publication of names of practitioners who may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates. We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Administration) of this Bench to immediately circulate instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the names of the practitioners as part of news item.

(iv) We also direct, for the present, the Registrar (Administration) to request the Print, Electronic and Media House, not to publish the individual names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required. The reason being every Judge of the High Court is carrying on with his work sitting in a particular division/roster as assigned by My Lord The Hon’ble Chief Justice. The Judges do perform their duties dispassionately and to the extent possible by not allowing their individual notions and philosophies to be a guiding factor in deciding the causes brought before them. Therefore, we feel that the names of the Judges should not be published and on the other hand, the name of the High Court alone should be published.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Services SEO LLC e-boost Search Engine Optimization Services Internet Marketing Services Website Placement Services On-site Webs

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions