2000 PLP 1999 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus ASMAT KAMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1999 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Bar Council Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, Chairman |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus ASMAT KAMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1999 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1999 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal bench comprising: Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, Chairman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1999 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHAH‑‑‑Applicant Versus ASMAT KAMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing: 17th April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 41‑‑‑Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, 8.175‑A‑‑‑Professional misconduct‑‑‑Allegation against accused Advocate was that he was engaged by complainant to challenge the order passed by Punjab Labour Court, Lahore, but despite having given undertaking he did not file petition end on account of the omission complainant not only incurred expenses, but also suffered from mental torture‑‑‑Accused Advocate, though denied the allegation, be had conceded that he did accept amount from complainant as initial expenses but advised him not to challenge the order of Labour Court as no case was made out‑‑‑Accused Advocate offered complainant Rs.10,000 to compensate him, which amount was readily accepted by complainant‑‑‑Matter having been settled mutually, in' absence of any other complaint against Advocate, Tribunal did not pass any order against the accused Advocate. Complainant in person. Respondent in person. Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Addl. A.‑G. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti, Secretary Punjab Bar Council.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 41‑‑‑Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, 8.175‑A‑‑‑Professional misconduct‑‑‑Allegation against accused Advocate was that he was engaged by complainant to challenge the order passed by Punjab Labour Court, Lahore, but despite having given undertaking he did not file petition end on account of the omission complainant not only incurred expenses, but also suffered from mental torture‑‑‑Accused Advocate, though denied the allegation, be had conceded that he did accept amount from complainant as initial expenses but advised him not to challenge the order of Labour Court as no case was made out‑‑‑Accused Advocate offered complainant Rs.10,000 to compensate him, which amount was readily accepted by complainant‑‑‑Matter having been settled mutually, in' absence of any other complaint against Advocate, Tribunal did not pass any order against the accused Advocate. Complainant in person. Respondent in person. Ghulam Haider Alghazali, Addl. A.‑G. Muhammad Akbar Bhatti, Secretary Punjab Bar Council. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1999. The allegation against the respondent‑Advocate was that he was engaged by the complainant to challenge the order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. VII, Lahore whereby he was refused allowances amounting to Rs.18,125 but the respondent‑Advocate despite having kiven undertaking did not file any petition. It was further alleged that on account of. pursuing this matter and frequently coming to Lahore, the complainant had not only to incure expense but mental torture as well.
2. The respondent‑Advocate denies the afore‑referred allegations 'but' very fairly concedes that he did accept Rs.500 as initial expense but advised the complainant not to challenge the order as no case was made out. The respondent‑Adovcate on a query made by this Tribunal voluntarily offered to A compensate the complainant in terms of which he gave Rs.10,000 which have been readily accepted by the complainant. Since the matter has been settled mutually and there is no corroborating evidence in support of either of the parties and as admittedly, there is no other complaint against the respondent‑Advocate, we are not inclined to pass any order in this complaint which stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑1179/L Order accordingly.