DAISY BEHRAMJI DAMANIA Vs. BALRAJ S CHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the order dated 28th february, 2006 Mr. Nitin Jamdar, Advocate appears for Bar Council of India and submits that Disciplinary Committee of the Bar council constituted under section 9 of the advocate's Act is a Court subordinate to the high Court. In this connection, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta high Court in the case of (N. Dutta Majumdar v. Anil Kumar Bose) , 1975 Cri. L. J. 1595.

(2.) The Division Bench of the Calcutta high Court in paragraphs 10, 13 and 15 of the Report observed thus: 10. These are some of the relevant provisions of the Act which for our present purpose would go to indicate that the Disciplinary committee of a Bar Council has not merely the trappings of a Court but has also the requisite attributes of a Court. 13. We respectfully agree with the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions and applying the Same test we find on a reference to the relevant provisions of the Act that the Disciplinary Committee of a Bar Council is a Court. We may now come to the next question whether it can be said to be a subordinate to the High court so as to attract the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 15. We are unable to agree with such contention. In this connection we may once again refer to the abovementioned case of (Thakur jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank) , a. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1494 : 1967 Cri. L. J. 1380 (S. C. ) as decided by the Supreme Court. There also the question arose whether the Assistant Registrar under Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act was a court subordinate to the High Court (see a. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1494 at p. 1502 : 1967 cri. L. J. 1380 at p. 1388. In that case the foundation of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was provided by the difference in the wording of Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution. Under Article 227 every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and Tribunal throughout territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It was laid down in jugal Kishore's case that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises judicial control over all courts and tribunals functioning within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction and this should be the test in deciding the question whether a Court is subordinate to the High Court. It was observed,

(3.) In summary, the Calcutta High Court has held that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council constituted under section 9 of the advocate's Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Nothing contrary has been shown presently and thus prima facie we are satisfied that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council established under the Advocate's Act, 1961 is a Court, subordinate to the High court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.