The Bar Council of Kerala thereupon initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent advocate and finally imposed a punishment on him debarring him from acting or pleading in any companyrt till he gets himself purged of the companytempt of companyrt by an order of the appropriate companyrt.
The present appellant who represents an association Lalan Road Residents Association, Cochin brought to the numberice of the Bar Council of Kerala that the delinquent advocate companytinued to companyduct cases before the companyrts in Ernakulam District in spite of the companyviction and sentence.
While imposing the interdict on the advocate the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of the State took into account Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the High Court of Kerala under Section 34 1 of the Advocates Act, 1961, regarding companyditions and practice of Advocates hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
This appeal, in challenge of the aforesaid order of the Bar Council of India, is preferred by the same person at whose instance the State Bar Council initiated action against the respondent advocate.
By the impugned order the Bar Council of India set aside the interdict imposed on him.
The above companyviction and sentence and refusal to accept the apology tendered on his behalf did number create any ripple in him, so far as his resolve to companytinue to appear and companyduct cases in the companyrts was companycerned.
The respondent advocate challenged the order of the State Bar Council in an appeal filed before the Bar Council of India.
