Find a Lawyer

NISARUL HAQ versus N.-W.F.P., BAR COUNCIL (DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE)

The professional misconduct complaint against the Advocates 13, 41 and 51 was that he was associated with the legal profession while performing his duties as a teacher and in doing so, contrary to the provisions of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973. And violated the rules and regulations made under it. The Dispensary Committee for Professional Misconduct initiated proceedings against the Advocate, which submitted the written statement and denied the allegations in the complaint against it. In this request, the Advocate initially raised objections that the parties heard and After considering this, the Bar Council has no natural jurisdiction to investigate the allegations of the Complainant Dispensary Committee. Available on the record, this objection was rejected and the bar council proceeded with a trial against the Counsel Counsel for legal proceedings, as the Advocate had regular registration with the Bar Council which the Advocate Had promised his existence. CH, which drew up the provisions of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 and was created under Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973, was not only the professional misconduct of the Advocate, but also their Other behaviors can also be seen. The Bar Council, the Bar Council, filed a full jurisdiction over the complaint against the Advocate Order passed by the members of the Bar Council's Dispensary Committee, under which the object of the Advocate was rejected, which was absolutely valid, legal and fair. Was in accordance with established principles which had no name. Interference top advocate from Sagri lawyer