AIBE XVII — February 2023 — Q.68 (Advocates Act, 1961)

Share Q.68:

Q.68

Professional Ethics & BCI Rules Medium Knowledge-Based

Bare Act Advocates Act, 1961 · Section 35 (Professional Misconduct)

In which of the following landmark case the advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct as he had forged the court order?

✓ Pratap Narain v. Y . P. Raheja Answer

B Vikramaditya v. Smt. Jamila Khatoon

C Babulal Jain v. Subhash Jain

D Smt. P. Pankajam v. B. H. Chandrashekhar

📋

Explanation & Strategy

Click any section to expand · only one open at a time

This question tests recall of a specific case where an advocate was found guilty of professional misconduct. Key cases include R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma (where an advocate was found guilty of misconduct), and V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan. The answer depends on the specific options given.

At a Glance

Subject Professional Ethics & BCI Rules

Difficulty Medium

Act Advocates Act, 1961

Section Section 35 (Professional Misconduct)

Answer (A) Knowledge-Based

Paper AIBE XVII — February 2023

Navigation

← Q.67 ☰ All Questions Q.69 →

🎯 Mock Test

Progress in Paper

Q.68 100 questions

68% through paper

📖 Open Book — Reading Mode Advocates Act, 1961 ↗ New Tab

📄

Mobile browsers only show page 1 of a PDF in-panel.
Open in a new tab to read all pages.

Open Advocates Act, 1961 →