PIL filed by an advocate against the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa regarding transfer fee imposition was disposed of as no public interest was involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
PILL 60 of 2015
Vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No.60 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION No. 254 OF 2016 IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 60 OF 2015
Devendra Nath Tripathi ...Petitioner Vs.
The Secretary Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. D.V. Saroj for the Petitioner Mr. P.A. Dubey i/b. Ms. Neeta Masurkar for Respondent No.4 ******
CORAM : V. M. KANADE &
SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ
DATE : AUGUST 30, 2016
P.C. :
“A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the Minutes of meeting dated September 26, 2010 & Resolution Nos.112 of 2010 of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and after perusing the same
2/3
PILL 60 of 2015
restrain/ stay the following points from further operation of the same through Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, till the final disposal of this Petition, from further charging such transfer fee without following the procedure established by the law i.e., Section 18 of the said Act;
B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent to refund the Transfer fee so charged to the Petitioner along with 18% interest herein;
C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce before the Hon'ble Court the amount and figures charged or collected under Section 18 of the said Act till date, since inception and direct the Respondents to refund the same back to people/ Advocates.
D) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a mandatory order of injunction restraining the Respondents herein from exercising rights and powers under the Resolution dated September, 26, 2010 and further issuing any such or similar resolution, notification, circular and/or directive which would nullify the effect of Section 18 of the said Act.”
3/3 PILL 60 of 2015
SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.
Vaishali Tikam
Devendra Nath Tripathi
The Secretary Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Ors.
V. M. Kanade
Swapna S. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
