The Calcutta Weekly Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the English Law Courts Monday July 3 1922

After this order was made by the Crimnal Court the Court of the Judicial Comissioner called upon him to show cause why he should not be struck off from the Rolls and in the result the Court found that the conduct of the Petitioner for which he was bound over by the Criminal Court comes within the puview of sec. [...] 107 of the Criminal Procdure (ode itself was illegally made and was in the circumstances an abuse of the process of the Court and that even if it be assumed toihave been correctly made the conduct with which he was charged did not involve any moral turpitude so as to attract the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court under sec. [...] 107 Criminal Procedure Code as it was a criminal order and that as regards the order suspending the Petitioner from pratice once it was established that the conduct for which the Pleader was bound down was one which the Court was entitled to consider in the exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction their Lordshipwould not go into the question whther the order striking the Pleader. [...] After this it was inevtable that the idea that the Pleader was an officer of the Court and was under a special obligation as such to assist the administration of the law would be put forward in support of the Court's jurisdiction to take disciplinary action for coduct not disclosing a defect of character. [...]. Their Lordships sympathise with the difficulties which confronted the Courts below as to the possession of the-property under appeal and they agree with what is apparently the view of both Courts that such possession has to be interpreted according to the fairest view of what the property itself was capable of in the way of possession and what upon a broad view would be considered an adequa