N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

civil - professional misconduct - section 35 of advocates act, 1961 - appeal filed against order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from government of karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under section 35. - patents act (39 of 1970)sections 108, 104 :[markandey katju & asok kumar ganguly,jj] suit for infringement of patents held, hearing to be done on day to day basis. suits not to be kept pending for years. supreme court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. directions given in s.l.p.no. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

order1. this appeal has been filed under section 38 of the advocates act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'] by n.k. jagannivasa rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an advocate with the karnataka bar council. action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under section 35 of the act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, n. shivananda rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of rs. 500 per month from the government of karnataka. the karnataka bar council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an advocate for a period of six months. on appeal, the bar council of india, by the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '673170',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
			'court_type' => 'SC',
			'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '673170',
		(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'N K Jagannivasa Rao Vs N Shivananda Rao - Citation 673170 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '673170',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'N.K. Jagannivasa Rao Vs. N. Shivananda Rao',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - professional misconduct - Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 - appeal filed against Order of suspending appellant from practising as an advocate - appellant found to have made false statement about his income and obtained stipend from Government of Karnataka - held, action to be taken against appellant for misconduct under Section 35.


 - PATENTS ACT (39 OF 1970)Sections 108, 104 :[Markandey Katju & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Suit for infringement of patents  Held, Hearing to be done on day to day basis. Suits not to be kept pending for years. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over situation that such suits are kept pending and litigation is mainly fought about temporary injunction. Directions given in S.L.P.No. 21594 of 2009 dated 7.9.2009 to be followed punctually and faithfully. -  We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Supreme Court of India',
		'court_type' => 'SC',
		'decidedon' => '1997-01-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' S.C. Agrawal and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'JT1998(9)SC286; (1997)11SCC100',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'N. Shivananda Rao',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '673170',
	(int) 1 => 'n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/673170/n-k-jagannivasa-rao-vs-n-shivananda'
$ctype = ''
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by N.K. Jagannivasa Rao, appellant, who is enrolled as an Advocate with the Karnataka Bar Council. Action has been taken against the appellant for misconduct under Section 35 of the Act on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent, N. Shivananda Rao, wherein it was stated that by misstating that his income was less than Rs. 10,000 per month the appellant had obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka Bar Council found that the said allegation in the complaint was established and directed that the appellant be suspended from practising as an Advocate for a period of six months. On appeal, the Bar Council of India, by the impugned judgment, has reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant to reprimand. We have heard Shri Mukul Mudgal, the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Karnataka Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India that the appellant made a false statement about his income and on the basis of such false statement he obtained stipend of Rs. 500 per month from the Government of Karnataka. The said conduct of the appellant in obtaining stipend by making a false statement about his income constitutes misconduct and action could be taken against him for such misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 1 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 2
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109