BCHP/Minutes/29.12.2019/2019

29.12.2019

Minutes of the meeting of Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh held on

29.12.2019 at 11:00 A.M. in the office of Bar Council of H. P. High

Court, Shimla.

Following were present in the Meeting:

1. Sh. Ramakant Sharma - Chairman

2. Sh. Narender Singh Thakur - Vice-Chairman

3. Shri Desh Raj Sharma, - Member (BCI)

4. Shri Ajay Kochhar - Member

5. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma - Member

6. Shri I. N. Mehta - Member

7. Shri Lovneesh Kanwar - Member

8. Shri Madan Lal Verma - Member

9. Shri Naresh Thakur - Member

10. Shri Rakesh Kumar Acharya - Member

11. Shri Raminder Kumar Gautam - Member

12. Shri Vipin Pandit - Member

13. Shri Ashok Sharma - Ld. Advocate General

14. Mrs. Smita Thakur - Secretary

Items Nos. :-

1. Confirmation of the minutes of the meeting held on 20.12.2019. Minutes of Meeting held on 20.12.2019 are hereby confirmed.

Service Matter/Codal Formalities:-

2. To consider the complaint case No. CC-30/2019 of Smt. Savita against Shri Shyam

Lal, Advocate, Bar Association Nalagarh.

It is unanimously decided by the General House after perusing the complaint that a reply

be called from the Respondent, Advocate. Let reply be called from the Respondent,

Advocate within three weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

3. To consider the complaint case No. CC-31/2019 of Shri Shashi Bhushan Attri

against Shri Tika Ram, Advocate, Bar Association Nahan.

It is unanimously decided by the General House after perusing the complaint that a reply

be called from the Respondent, Advocate. Let reply be called from the Respondent,

Advocate within three weeks from the date of receipt of communication from the Bar

Council.

4. To consider the complaint case No. CC-32/2019 of Smt. Sarita Bhateja against Shri

Gautam Sood, Advocate, Bar Association H. P. High Court.

It is unanimously decided by the General House after perusing the complaint that a reply

be called from the Respondent, Advocate. Let reply be called from the Respondent,

Advocate within three weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the

Bar Council.

5. To consider the complaint case No. CC-29/2019 of Shri Durgesh Kumar against Shri

Inder Singh, Advocate, Bar Association, Nahan.

It is unanimously decided by the General House after perusing the complaint that a reply

be called from the Respondent, Advocate. Let reply be called from the Respondent,

Advocate within three weeks from the date of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

6. To consider the complaint case No.CC-15/2019 of Shri Varinder Singh against

Shri Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate Bar Association Dehra and Advocate on

Record (1237) in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

In pursuance to Resolution No.2 passed in the General House meeting held on 20th

October, 2019, a report has been submitted by the office that Shri Virender Kumar

Sharma, Advocate, is not enrolled with the present Bar Council. Therefore, the

complainant be intimated accordingly. The complaint is disposed of.

7. To consider the complaint case No.CC-16/2019 of Shri Vinod Kumar against

Shri Parveen Chandel, Advocate Bar Association, HP High Court.

The reply filed by the respondent Advocate has been perused. It is unanimously decided

by the General House that let rejoinder be called for from the complainant, who may be

asked to file the rejoinder within three weeks from the date of receipt of communication

from the Bar Council.

8. To consider the complaint case No. CC-22/2019 of Shri Ved Prakash against

Shri Babu Ram, Advocate, Bar Association Dharamshala/Nurpur

The General House has perused the reply filed by the respondent-Advocate and the

General House is of the opinion that perusal of the complaint as well as reply, would go

to show that no case of professional misconduct or any other misconduct is made out .

Therefore, the complaint is dismissed for the reasons enumerated below:-

(i) According to the complainant the allegations are that the Respondent Advocate

has scribed the Will of one of the parties in the RSA 618/2007 Smt. Savitri Devi.

We have perused the Will, which is registered and attested by two witnesses,

therefore, for this reason only, it cannot be said that there is any misconduct or

professional misconduct on the part of the respondent in scribing the Will.

Therefore, the complaint is disposed of.

9. To consider the complaint case No. CC-28/2019 of Shri Sher Singh against

Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate, Bar Association High Court.

The General House has perused the complaint as well as the reply. According to the

allegations of the complainant that the counsel representing the complainant in RSA

No.577/2015 has withdrawn the appeal without his permission. It is clear from order

dated 23rd

November, 2016, which is at page-17 of the paper book in which the presence

of the complainant/appellant has been marked. Therefore, the appeal having been

withdrawn in presence of the complainant there is, no case of professional misconduct or

any other misconduct as envisaged U/S 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The complaint,

being devoid of any merit and the same is disposed of.

10. To consider the complaint case No. CC-27/2019 of Rama Nand Thakur, against

Shri Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate, Bar Association High Court.

The General House has perused the complaint as well as reply. It is unanimously decided

by the General House that rejoinder from the complainant be called who may be asked to

file the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Reply from

the Bar Council.

11. To consider the complaint case, No. CC-37/2018 of Shri Dalip Singh against

Shri Durga Ram, Advocate, Bar Association Nahan.

The General House has perused the complaint as well as reply. It is unanimously decided

by the General House that rejoinder from the complainant be called who may be asked to

file the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Reply from

the Bar Council.

12. To consider the complaint case No. CC-10/2019 of Shri Ajay Kumar Chauhan,

Advocate, against Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate, Bar Association Civil Courts

Dharamshala.

That perusal of the complaint case would go to show that the respondent-Advocate was

asked to file reply vide communication dated 25th

June, 2019, whereby he was asked to

file reply within three weeks. However, till date, the respondent-Advocate has failed to

file reply. It is unanimously decided by the General House that the respondent-Advocate

be asked to file reply by way of last and final opportunity within four weeks from the

date of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

13. To consider the complaint case No. CC-24/2018 of Smt. Satya Devi against Shri

Pradeep Kanwar, Advocate, Bar Association Rajgarh.

The General House in its previous meeting held on 20.10.2019, had decided to grant one

opportunity to the complainant to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent-

Advocate, but till date, no rejoinder has been filed. The General House is of the

unanimous opinion that let last and final opportunity be given to the complainant to file

rejoinder, who may be asked to do the needful within three weeks from the date of receipt

of communication from the Bar Council.

14. To consider the complaint case No. CC-9/2019 of Shri Maqbool Ahmed, against Shri

Nitin Gupta, Advocate (Public Notary) Bar Association Nahan.

The General House has perused the complaint as well as the reply filed by the

respondent-Advocate. Perusal of the complaint would go to show that the allegations of

the complainant are that the respondent-Advocate has charged Rs.6,000/- as documents

charges for the purpose of drafting the mortgage deed. The respondent-Advocate has

filed reply, wherein, he has categorically stated that he is neither charged any fee nor the

mortgage deed was drafted by him. We have seen the mortgage deed, which is at page

37 of the paper book. It appears that name of the respondent-Advocate has been wrongly

mentioned, whereas it should have been the name of the Advocate, who had drafted the

said mortgage deed, i.e. Mr. Narender Thapa, Advocate, though at page-37 enrolment of

said Shri Narender Thap, which is rightly mentioned as HIM/47/2017, but it appears that

due to typographical mistake, name of the respondent-Advocate appears at parge-37.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the respondent-Advocate is not

guilty of any professional misconduct or any other misconduct as envisaged under

Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is unanimously resolved by the General House

that the complaint being devoid of any merit, be dismissed with no order as to costs.

15. To consider the complaint case No. CC-13/2019 of Shir Dababrata Nayak, against

S/Shri Parshotam Chaudhary, Sushant Vir Singh Thakur and Rajiv Sharma,

Advocate, Bar Association District Court, Shimla.

The General House has perused the complaint filed by the complainant. It appears that

the complainant has failed to file rejoinder despite an opportunity having been granted to

him. The General House is of the unanimous view that let last and final opportunity be

granted to the complainant to file rejoinder within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

16. To consider the complaint case No. CC-38/2018 of Shri Jai Ram and others against

Shri T. S. Rana, Advocate, Bar Association District Courts, Chakker, Shimla.

The General House has perused the complaint filed by the complainant. It appears that

the complainant has failed to file rejoinder despite an opportunity having been granted to

him. The General House is of the unanimous view that let last and final opportunity be

granted to the complainant to file rejoinder within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

17. To consider the complaint case No.CC-10/2017 of Shri Ramesh Dogra, against

Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Advocate, Bar Association HP High Court.

The General House has perused the complaint filed by the complainant. It appears that

the complainant has failed to file rejoinder despite an opportunity having been granted to

him. The General House is of the unanimous view that let last and final opportunity be

granted to the complainant to file rejoinder within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

18. To consider the complaint case No. CC-1/2018 of Shri Rajeev Kumar against Shri

Amar Deep Singh, Advocate, Bar Association HP High Court, HIM/59/2008.

The General House has perused the complaint, reply, documents

annexed thereto as well as rejoinder filed by the complainant. The General House is of the view

that the matter is required to be enquired into by the Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, the

matter is entrusted to Disciplinary Committee No.XII headed by the Chairman of the Committee,

Shri Ajay Kochhar, learned Bar Member, who may be requested to decide the complaint in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

19. To consider the complaint case No. CC-17/2018 of Sh. Arunesh Thakur against Sh.

Shyam Lal, Advocate, Bar Association, District Court, Bilaspur.

The General House has perused the complaint filed by the complainant. It appears that

the complainant has failed to file rejoinder despite an opportunity having been granted to

him. The General House is of the unanimous view that let last and final opportunity be

granted to the complainant to file rejoinder within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

20. To consider the complaint case No. CC-31/28018 of Shri Bhagmal Guleria against

Shri Suresh Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, Bar Association, Kangra.

The General House has perused the complaint, reply as well as rejoinder. It appears from

the allegations made by the complainant in para-4 of the complaint that the respondent

has drafted the letter for circulation to various authorities with a view to cause mental

stress and harassment to the complainant. It is unanimously decided by the General

House that the complainant may be asked to file those documents as alleged in para-4 of

the complaint. Let notice be issued to the complainant to file documents in support of

para-4 of the complaint within three weeks positively, failing which the complaint will

proceed in accordance with law.

21. To consider the complaint Case No. CC-6/2017 of Shir Kanshi Ram against S/Shri

M.M Rawat, Aman Deep Negi, Trilok Singh, Har Dev Sharma and Smt. Kamlesh,

Advocates, Bar Association, Rohru.

The General House has perused the complaint, reply, rejoinder as well as documents

placed on record. The House is of the unanimous view that the respondents are not guilty

of any professional misconduct or any other misconduct as envisaged under Section 35 of

Advocates Act, 1961, for the following reasons:-

That according to the allegations of the complainant, it is

averred in the complaint that the respondents have drafted HUF Partition under Section 135(3) of

H.P. Land Revenue Act, on 21st November, 2014, at the back and without knowledge and consent

of the complainant at Rohru and presented for affirmation in the month of August, 2016, before

the Collector at Chirgaon, District Shimla. In this way, the above named Advocate has conducted

misconduct of legal profession, ethics etc. We have perused the reply filed by the respondents,

wherein vide para-4 of the reply, it is specifically averred by the respondents that they have not

committed any misconduct, however, partition proceedings are going on in the Courts between

the parties and not only this, a Civil Suit tilted as Sulajeet Singh Versus Kanshi Ram, is also

going on, which fact is apparent from page-45 of the paper book. It is clear from the entire facts

and circumstances of the case that the complaint is misconceived and, therefore, no case of

professional misconduct or any other misconduct is made out against the respondents,, so as to

satisfy the requirement of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The complaint, being devoid

of any merit is hereby dismissed.

22. To consider the complaint Case No. CC-19/2018 of Shri Narender Kumar against

Shri Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate, Bar Association, HP High Court.

The General House has perused the complaint filed by the complainant. It appears that

the complainant has failed to file rejoinder despite an opportunity having been granted to

him. The General House is of the unanimous view that let last and final opportunity be

granted to the complainant to file rejoinder within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of notice from the Bar Council.

23. To consider the complaint case No. CC-18/2018 of Shri Prem Singh against

Shri Kunal Sharma and Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocates, Bar Association H.P. High

Court.

Though the General House is of the opinion that other two Hon’ble Members of

Disciplinary Committee could have proceeded with the matter, but without entering into

any controversy, it is unanimously resolved by the House that let this complaint be given

to some other Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, it is unanimously decided that the

complaint is entrusted to the Disciplinary Committee No.X, headed by Shri I.N. Mehta,

learned Bar Member of the Bar Council of H. P.

24. To consider the complaint case No. CC-23/2018 of Shri Sadanand Sharma against

Shri Kunal Sharma Advocate, Bar Association H.P. High Court.

Though the General House is of the opinion that other two Hon’ble Members of

Disciplinary Committee could have proceeded with the matter, but without entering into

any controversy, it is unanimously resolved by the House that let this complaint be given

to some other Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, it is unanimously decided that the

complaint is entrusted to the Disciplinary Committee No.X, headed by Shri I.N. Mehta,

learned Bar Member of the Bar Council of H. P.

25. To consider the complaint case No. CC-33/2018 of Shri Jagmohan Singh Chandel,

Advocate against Ms. Parul and Shri Jagat Paul, Advocates, Bar Association

District Court, Chakker, Shimla.

26. To consider the complaint case No. CC-20/2018 of Shri Jagat Pal and Ms. Parul,

Advocates, against Shri Jagmohan Singh Chandel, Advocate, Bar Association

District Courts, Chakker, Shimla.

Item No.25 and 26 are taken upon together for disposal.

In pursuance of the proceedings dated 20th

October, 2019, the complainant in complaint

case No.CC-33/2018 and respondents Ms. Parul and Shri Jagat Paul, were requested to

attend the Bar Council, so as to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. Similarly,

in complaint case No.CC-20/2018 filed by Shri Jagat Paul and Ms. Parul, Advocates,

against Shri Jag Mohan Chandel, Advocate. Both the parties were requested to attend the

Bar Council to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. In pursuance to the

communications sent by the office of Bar Council, Shri Jag Mohan Chandel in complaint

case No.CC-33/2018 and Shri Jagat Paul complainant in complaint case No.CC-20/2018

are present. Both of them have been heard by the General House and they have been

persuaded by the Hon’ble Members to amicably settle both the complaints. During the

course of discussion, both the learned Advocates, who are complainant in one case and

respondents in the other, it transpired that complaint case No.CC-33/2018, the FIR has

been lodged by the client of Shri Jag Mohan Chandel against Shri Jagat Paul and Ms.

Parul, which is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.4,

Shimla. Similarly, the FIR lodged by complainants in complaint case No.CC-20/2018,

i.e. Shri Jagat Paul and Ms. Parul, is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st

Class, Court No.3, Shimla. It is heartening to note that both the learned counsel, who

are present in person in the General House, have agreed to initiate proper proceedings for

the purpose of withdrawal quashy and compounding offences of the FIRs. Therefore,

both the complaints are disposed of and the General House is of the unanimous view that

since both the learned counsel, have agreed to the suggestion of the General House their

stand is appreciable which appreciated by the quarrel House and appreciation is

taken on record.

27. To consider the complaint filed by Shri Dev Ashish Bhattacharya, against Shri

Vinay Sharma, Advocate, Bar Association, Dharamshala.

That the General House has perused the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee No.

IX, whereby the complaint has been dismissed and the same is noted.

28. To consider the complaint case No. CC-5/2017 of Shri Satish Chander against Shri

Ajay Dhiman, Advocate, Bar Association H. P. High Court.

That the General House has perused the record of the case file. This file has come up

before the General House whereby the Hon’ble Disciplinary Committee No. IX headed

by Chairman Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma as well as other two Members, Shri Narender

Singh Thakur and Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate, Bilaspur, H.P., (Co-opted Member).

The Hon’ble Committee has sent the file to this General House on the ground that the

complainant has filed an application whereby he has made serious allegations against the

Committee, though those allegations, according to the General House, are not sufficient

to refer the matter to the House by the Committee, but in any case since the period of

one year is going to expire, after winter vacations, therefore, it is unanimously resolved

by the General House that this matter be sent to the Bar Council of India in view of

Section 36-B of the Advocate’s Act, 1961.

29. To consider the Application filed by Shri Ravi Prasher, Advocate, President, Bar

Association Amb.

The matter was taken up by the General House. It has been unanimously resolved by the

General House that matter is deferred till the next meeting of the Bar Council.

30. To consider the Enhancement of Monthly Salaries of the Staff of Bar Council of

Himachal Pradesh.

It is informed by Shri Raminder Kumar Gautam, learned Senior Member of the Bar

Council that he has received the Service Rules from some of the Bar Councils and he

would be able to finalize the same well before next meeting of the General House of the

Bar Council, therefore, the matter is deferred till the next meeting of the General House.

31. Status /Stage of Law Bhawan.

32. To consider the matter regarding Reservation of Accommodation for the lawyers in

Government Rest Houses, Circuit Houses as well as Guest Houses of Himachal

Bhawan,/Sadan at Chandigarh, Delhi and Mumbai and Hon'ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh.

33. To consider the matter regarding matching grant by State of Himachal Pradesh to

the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund on the lines of other States

including Andhra Pradesh Government every year.

34. To consider the matter regarding request for enacting an Act by the State of

Himachal Pradesh as an Advocates Protection Act.

35. To consider the matter regarding opening of Advocates Academy in the State of

Himachal Pradesh.

36. To consider the matter regarding implementation of Scheme as resolved vide Item

No. 26 in the meeting of Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh held on 2.3.2008.

Item No.31 to 36 are taken up together for consideration.

These matters are taken up together by the General House. As per proceedings of the

meeting of the last General House, the Hon’ble Committee headed by Shri Ashok

Sharma, learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh, as well as Vice-Chairman,Shri

Narender Singh, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, and Shri Arvind Dhiman, Member,

Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, were required to seek an appointment from the

Hon’ble Chief Minister as well as the Hon’ble Law Minister of Himachal Pradesh for the

purpose of aforesaid discussion and consideration of aforesaid agenda items. It is

submitted by the learned Advocate General as well as the Vice-Chairman that due to

busy schedule of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, they could not get in touch with the

Hon’ble Chief Minister. However, they are in touch with the office of the Hon’ble Chief

Minister and as and when the appointment is given by the Hon’ble Chief Minister for the

aforesaid purpose, the agenda items will be discussed with the Hon’ble Chief Minister

and date for dinner to the Hon’ble dignitaries will be communicated to the Hon’ble

Members.

37. To consider the matter regarding inspection of Law Colleges in the State.

When this item was taken up for discussion, the Hon’ble Member of the Bar Council of

India, who is present, Shri Desh Raj Sharma, has informed the General House that the

Bar Council of India is likely to take decision on the request made by the State Bar

Council in this behalf. The General House is of the unanimous view that a request be

made to the Hon’ble Member, Bar Council of India, to get the matter expedited .

38. To consider the matter regarding making a request to High Court for providing

further accommodation.

When the matter is taken up by the General House, Hon’ble Member, Shri Ajay Kochhar,

pointed out that the Chairman Ld. Advocate General and Members based at Shimla may

seek as appointed with Hon’ble Chief Justice in this behalf. The General House has

unanimously agreed to this suggestion.

39. To consider the matter regarding Health Insurance Scheme/Mediclaim Insurance

(Group) Scheme and personal accident/on the lines of one introduced by the Bar

Council of Maharashtra.

The General House has perused the file and the House is of the opinion that the

Committee Members, S/Shri I.N. Mehta, Amit Vaid, Ajay Kochhar, Ajay Kumar Sharma

and Lovneeesh Kanwar, who are ceased of the matter, are requested to again expedite the

matter and submit report, positively before the next meeting of the General House.

40. To consider the matter regarding the progress of computerization of Bar Council

records as well as website of Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.

When this matter is taken up before the General House, the Chairman of the Committee

Shri I.N. Mehta has informed the House that matter is in progress and two days’ back, a

meeting was held with the officials of the UCO Bank as well as that of DIET, HPSEDC

in presence of the Worthy Chairman of the Bar Council. It is unanimously decided by

the General House that the Chairman of the Committee, Shri I.N. Mehta, is requested to

expedite the matter and finalize the same within fifteen days positively. It is further

unanimously resolved by the General House that the Committee is authorized to enter

into and perform all the codal formalities for the aforesaid purpose.

41. To consider the expenses for renovation/furnishing of the office of the Bar Council

of Himachal Pradesh and to provide better infrastructure.

The matter was taken up for consideration by the General House. The Hon.ble Members

of the Committee, S/Shri I.N. Mehta, Ajay Kumar Sharma and Lovneeesh Kanwar, has

informed the House that work of renovation/furnishing of the office of the Bar Council is

going to start from tomorrow for which purpose estimates etc. have already been given

by the concerned Contractors to the Committee. It is unanimously resolved by the

House that the Committee should expedite the matter

and get the renovation/furnishing of the office of the Bar Council done so as to provide

better infrastructure at the earliest as far as possible, preferably before opening of the

Courts after winter vacations.

42. To consider the matter regarding obtaining grant from Bar Council of India under

Section 46A of the Advocates Act, 1961.

When the matter was taken up for discussion, it is resolved by the General House that the

Hon’ble Member of Bar Council of India, Shri Desh Raj Sharma, who is present, be

requested to provide the below mentioned information to the General House:-

(i) How many Bar Councils have been provided maximum grant under Section 46-A

of the Advocate’s Act, 1961;

(ii) If granted, the same be extended to the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.

The General House be apprised with respect to aforesaid information which will

be placed in the next General House in its.

43. To consider matter regarding construction of Lawyers Chambers in District and

Sub Divisional Courts and provision for appropriate space/accommodation to the

litigants.

When this matter was taken up for consideration, the Hon’ble Member, Shri Ajay Kumar

Sharma, who was ceased of the matter, has informed the General House that since the

Bar Associations are not responding, so this matter be dropped for the time being. The

General House is of the opinion that for the time being, let this matter be dropped the

same is hereby dropped.

44. For consideration of items sent by email by Shri Vipin Pandit, Member, Bar

Council of Himachal Pradesh on 15.6.2019, in which at query no. (C) he has asked –

(C)Whether the accounts of HP Bar Council for Financial Year 2017-18 and 2018-

19 have been got audited, placing and getting the audit report approved from the

General House of the Council in alternative to provide all details of income and

expenditure to the Members of the Council including copy of Audit Report.

When this matter was taken up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of the

General House that Secretary has been engaged on contract basis as per office order

dated 26th

March, 2013, and her engagement is purely on contractual basis. Under

Clause-3, it is envisaged that her services can be terminated at any time without giving

any notice. These terms and conditions have been accepted by the Secretary while

submitting her joining report on 26th

March, 2013. It is brought to the notice of the

General House that since the service Rules are being framed and on the lines of Punjab

and Haryana Bar Councils, it is decided that since the services of Secretary, namely, Smt.

Smita Thakur, who is on contract basis, are no more required by the Bar Council of

Himachal Pradesh, therefore, her services are hereby terminated, with immediate effect

and as a consequence, we should elect an Honorary Secretary till the finalization of the

Service Rules. The General House has also decided to elect an Honorary Secretary out of

the elected Members of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh without any remuneration

and the General House hereby authorized the Chairman to issue notification during the

course of the day in pursuance of the aforesaid decision.

45. For consideration enhancement of financial powers of the Chairman Bar Council

from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

When the matter was taken up for consideration, it has been observed that in the last

meeting of the General House, the powers of the Chairman were unanimously increased

to Rs.50,000/- and so far as the financial powers of the Executive Committee are

concerned, those are not required to be fixed by the General House and, therefore, the

matter is disposed of.

46. To consider the matter regarding Certificate of Practice and Identity Cards.

The matter was considered by the General House, keeping in view the fact that the office

has only received 57 defective certificates of Practice, 48 identity cards from 13 Bar

Associations, it is felt by the General House that reminders be sent to the Bar

Associations, requesting them to search defective certificates on or before 31st March,

2020. This is given a last opportunity. It is further observed by the General House that

no further request shall be entertained by the Bar Council in this behalf.

47. Amendment of the Advocates Welfare Fund Trust Committee.

Noted.

48. Request Sh. Vipin Pandit.

(A) Account status of Verification Rules.

Noted.