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
Progress in Paper
Q.68 100 questions

68% through paper

📖 Open Book — Reading Mode Advocates Act, 1961