The Calcutta Weekly Notes Monday February 28 1944

We are in no way concerned with the merits of the case and need only point out that the witness concerned was a Barrister who was explaining his delay in reaching Lahore for the purpose of moving a habeas corpus aplication on behalf of his client. [...] Again it is contrary to the etiquette of the Bar for a practising Barrister to give an inteview to a representative of the Press on any matter in which he has been or is egaged as Counsel. [...] It is of the utmost importance that the Bar and the Courts should both be partcularly watchful of this form of advertising and say or do nothing to encourage it a33xxxiv THE CALCUTTA though they may not be able to stamp it out. [...] That may be an extreme form of scientifically planned avertising but once it is declared that arranging for the reporting of one's cases is perfectly in order general development of the art on the lines of the extreme case we have mentioned may in no time follow. [...] That being so the capacity of S in both decrees was the same and they were entitled to rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of his own property in the opponent's applcation: Held (DIVATIA J.)—That they were so etitled.