bchp/minutes/29.12.2019/2019barcouncilofhp.org/news/minutes 29.12.2019.pdf · to consider the...
TRANSCRIPT
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.