{"id":266334,"date":"1996-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996"},"modified":"2017-06-21T12:25:26","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T06:55:26","slug":"l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","title":{"rendered":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1602, JT 1996 (4)\t224<\/div>\n
Author: S Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nL.M. MAHURKAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/04\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, S.C. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1602\t\t  JT 1996 (4)\t224\n 1996 SCALE  (3)399\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nSEN, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant   claims  that   he\t was   a  Sales\t Tax
\nPractitioner in\t 1949 when  the Central\t Provinces and Berar
\nSales Tax  Act, 1947  was in  force in\tthe State  of Madhya
\nPradesh and,  thereafter he  continued his practice in sales
\ntax matters  at Nagpur\tunder the  provisions of  the Bombay
\nSales Tax  Act, 1959.  The appellant  claimed that  when the
\nAdvocates Act<\/a>,\t1961 came  into force, he was entitled to be
\nenrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been contended  by\t Mr.  Ganpule  appearing  on
\nbehalf of  the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to
\nbe enrolled  as an  Advocate by\t virtue of the provisions of
\nsub-section (31(aa)  of Section\t 24<\/a> of\tthe  Advocates\tAct,
\n1961. There  is no dispute that he does not have a degree in
\nlaw or\tfor that  matter any  degree, but he is a person who
\nwas entitled  to practise  the profession  of law before Ist
\nDecember, 1961\tby virtue  of the  provisions of  the Bombay
\nSales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore, his could not be denied.\n<\/p>\n
     We shall  have to\texamine whether the appellant’s case
\ncomes  within  the  provisions\tof  sub-section\t (3)(aa)  of
\nSection 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act to justify the claim made by
\nMr. Ganpule.  Sub-section (1)  of Section  24<\/a> lays  down the
\nqualifications which  must be acquired by a person who wants
\nto be  admitted as  an advocate on a State roll. Sub-section
\n(2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
\nsection (1)  a vakil  or a pleader who is a law graduate may
\nbe admitted  as an  advocate  under  certain  circumstances.
\nSubsection (3)\tdeals with  cases of persons who do not fall
\neither under  sub-section (1)  or (2).\tSub-section  (3)  of
\nSection 24<\/a> is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “24(3).  Notwithstanding\tanything
\n     contained\tin  sub-section\t (1),  a
\n     person who\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) has,  for at least three years,
\n     been  vakil   or  a  pleader  or  a
\n     mukhtar, or  was  entitled\t at  any
\n     time to  be enrolled  under any law
\n     as an  advocate  of  a  High  Court
\n     (including a High Court or a former
\n     Part B  State) or\tof  a  Court  of
\n     Judicial Commissioner  in any Union
\n     territory; or
\n     (aa)  before   the\t  1st\tday   of
\n     December,\t 1961,\t  was\tentitled
\n     otherwise than  as an  advocate  to
\n     practise  the   profession\t of  law
\n     (whether  by  way\tof  pleading  or
\n     acting or\tboth) by  virtue of  the
\n     provisions of any law, or who would
\n     have been\tso entitled  had he  not
\n     been in said date; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) . . .\t      . . .\t . . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) . . .\t      . . .\t . . .<\/p>\n
     Since the\tappellant’s claim is confined to clause (aa)
\nof sub-section\t(3), it\t will have to be examined whether he
\nwas entitled  ‘to practise  the profession of law’ by virtue
\nof the\tprovisions of  any law\tbefore 1st  day of December,
\n1961. The  appellant’S case  that he  was appearing in sales
\ntax matters  before sales tax authorities under Bombay Sales
\nTax Act has not been disputed. But that does not mean he was
\npractising the\tprofession of  law. Section 71 of the Bombay
\nSales Tax  Act, 1959 empowers not only legal practioners but
\nmany other  persons to\tappear before a sales tax authority.
\nSection 71<\/a> provides:\n<\/p>\n
     “71.    Appearance\t   before    any
\n     authority\tin  proceedings:(1)  Any
\n     person, who is entitled or required
\n     to attend\tbefore any  authority in
\n     connection\t with\tany   proceeding
\n     under this Act, may attend-<\/p>\n
     (a)  by  a\t relative  or  a  person
\n\t  regularly employed by him or\n<\/p>\n
     (b)  by   legal   practitioner   or
\n\t  Chartered Accountant\tor  Cost
\n\t  Accountant,\twho    is    not
\n\t  disqualified by  or under sub-\n<\/p>\n
\t  section (2), or\n<\/p>\n
     (c) by a sales tax practitioner who
\n\t  possesses    the    prescribed
\n\t  qualifications and  is entered
\n\t  in   the   list,   which   the
\n\t  Commissioner shall maintain in
\n\t  that behalf,\tand who\t is  not
\n\t  disqualified by  or under sub-<\/p>\n
\n\t  section (2),\n\t  if   such   relative,\t  person\n     employed,\t  legal\t   practitioner,\n     Chartered\t   Accountant,\t    Cost\n     Accountant\t    or\t   sales     tax\n<\/pre>\n
     practitioner is  authorized by such
\n     person in the prescribed formed and
\n     such authorization\t may include the
\n     authority to  act on behalf of such
\n     person in such proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) The  Commissioner may\tby order
\n     in writing\t and for  reasons to  he
\n     recorded  therein\t disqualify  for
\n     such period  as is\t stated\t in  the
\n     order  from  attending  before  any
\n     such    authority,\t    any\t   legal
\n     practitioner, Chartered Accountant,
\n     Cost  Accountant\tor   sales   tax
\n     practitioner,-<\/p>\n
\n     (i)  who\thas  been   removed   or\n\t  dismissed   from    Government\n\t  service, or\n<\/pre>\n
     (ii) who being a legal practitioner
\n\t  Chartered Accountant\tor  Cost
\n\t  is found  guilty of misconduct
\n\t  in   connection    with    any
\n\t  proceedings under  this Act by
\n\t  an authority empowered to take
\n\t  disciplinary\taction\t against
\n\t  the member  of the  profession
\n\t  to which he belongs, or\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)who\tbeing\t a   sales   tax
\n\t  practitioner is  found  guilty
\n\t  of  such   misconduct\t by  the
\n\t  Commissioner.”\n<\/p>\n
     It clearly\t appears that  a distinction  has been drawn
\nbetween a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in
\nSection\t 71<\/a>.   Both  may   appear  before  an  authority  in
\nconnection with sale-s tax cases. That will not turn a sales
\ntax practitioner  into a legal practitioner. Even a relative
\nor an  employee of  an assessee\t may appear  on\t his  behalf
\nbefore a  sales tax  authority. He  does not require to have
\nany special  qualification for\tdoing that  If\tan  employee
\nappears regularly  for his employer in connection with sales
\ntax cases  of his  employer before a sales tax authority, he
\ncannot be  treated to  be a  legal practitioner\t or entitled
\notherwise to  practise the  profession of  law by  virtue of
\nSection 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The second\t category of  persons, who  are entitled  to
\nappear before  sales tax  authorities under  clause  (b)  of
\nSection 71<\/a>,  are professionally\t qualified persons.  A legal
\npractitioner or\t a chartered accountant or a cost accountant
\nmay appear  before a  sales tax\t authority on  behalf of his
\nclient. Such appearance by a lawyer or an accountant will be
\nin the\tcourse of  carrying on\this  profession\t of  law  or
\naccountancy, as\t the case  may be. It cannot be said that an
\naccountant carries  on the profession of law when he appears
\nbefore the  sales tax  authority, nor  can it be said that a
\nlawyer carries\ton the\tprofession of  an accountant when he
\nappears before a sales tax authority. The third category, to
\nwhich the  appellant claims  to belong,\t is the\t category of
\nsales  tax   practitioners,  who   possess  the\t  prescribed
\nqualifications. Assuming  that the  appellant} who is stated
\nto be  only  a\tMatriculate,  has  acquired  the  prescribed
\nqualifications and  has been included in the list of persons
\nqualified to  appear before  the sales\ttax authorities,  he
\ncannot be  treated as  a person\t entitled to practise either
\nthe profession\tof law\tor the\tprofession of accountancy. A
\nlarge number of persons have been permitted to appear before
\nsales tax  authorities on  behalf of  the dealers.  The list
\nincludes an  employee a\t relative, a  sales tax practitioner
\nand also  professionally qualified  people like\t lawyers and
\naccountants.  The   right  to  appear  before  a  sales\t tax
\nauthority is  not confined to lawyers only. We are unable to
\nuphold the  contention that merely because the appellant has
\nbeen permitted\tto appear  before the sales tax authority he
\nfalls within  the category  of persons\tentitled to practise
\nthe profession\tof law\tby virtue  of the  provisions of the
\nBombay Sales Tax Act
\n     Moreover, appearance before the sales tax authority may
\nonly be\t for the  purpose of  filing a\treturn and producing
\ndocuments in  support  of  the\treturn.\t A  relative  or  an
\nemployee or an accountant or a sales tax practitioner can be
\nasked to  do this  job by an assessee for and on his behalf.
\nThat does  not mean that any one of the aforesaid Persons is
\npractising the\tprofession of  law when\t  he appears  before
\nthe  statutory\tauthority  and produces the accounts. He may
\neven be called upon to explain the accounts  or justify\t the
\nentries\t  made in   the\t accounts books.  There\t   may\t  be
\nproblems   only\t  of   book-keeping   and accountancy\t and
\nnothing\t  of\tlaw   in   such\t  proceedings. Therefore, it
\ncannot be  inferred straightaway that because the sales\t tax
\npractitioner has  been given  a right  to appear  before   a
\nstatutory   authority,\t he  is\t  practising  the profession
\nof law.\n<\/p>\n
     There is  also another  aspect of the matter. The exact
\nqualification of  the appellant\t and the  nature of his work
\nhas not\t been set  out in  the petition under Article 226<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution  before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High
\nCourt. It was stated by Mr. Ganpule that the petitioner is a
\nMatriculate. The Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra, by a
\nletter dated  27th December,  1978 called upon the appellant
\nto produce  the application  made by  him to  the Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer\t initially   for  registration\t as  a\t sales\t tax
\npractitioner.  The   appellant\twas   also  asked   to\tgive
\nparticulars of\tany examination\t of accountancy which he may
\nhave passed.  The appellant in reply in his letter dated 3rd
\nJanuary, 1979 stated:\n<\/p>\n
     “I have   to  state   that\t  I  did
\n     not     pass     any    accountancy
\n     examination since\t that  was   not
\n     necessary\t to qualify  for a sales
\n     Tax   Practitioner under\t section
\n     II-B(2) of\t the C.P.  & Berar Sales
\n     Tax  Act,\t1947.  Similarly,  under
\n     that Act,\tthere was  neither   any
\n     provision\tor any\trequirement  for
\n     formal enrollment\tor  registration
\n     as\t  Sales Tax   Practitioner,  but
\n     the then\tCommissioner  of   Sales
\n     Tax did not maintain a list of such
\n     Sales Tax Practitioner. Since I was
\n     such a Sales Tax Practitioner under
\n     that Act,\t I practised  right upto
\n     31st December,  1959,    when  that
\n     Act was  repealed on  1.1.1960  but
\n     the Bombay\t Sales Tax Act 1960, and
\n     by virtue\tof the\tSavings\t Section
\n     77(1)(c)<\/a>  of the  Repealing Act,  I
\n     was   entitled  to\t practice  under
\n     the Bombay\t  S.T.\tAct,   1960  and
\n     get   myself enrolled as  Sales Tax
\n     Practitioner  under     Section  71<\/a>
\n     read with Rule 66(2) of that Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The question  asked by  the Secretary,  Bar Council  of
\nMaharashtra, is also important for the purpose of this case.
\nThe sales tax practitioner is required to be conversant with
\naccountancy  principles\t and  practice.\t He  may  not  be  a
\nqualified chartered  accountant or a cost accountant, but he
\nmust have  some familiarity  with accountancy practice. This
\nis apparent  from the requisite qualification of a sales tax
\npractitioner under Rule 66 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules:\n<\/p>\n
     “66. Qualification\t  of a Sales Tax
\n     practitioner:    A\t    Sales    Tax
\n     Practitioner:-(1)\t A    sales  Tax
\n     Practitioner     shall  be eligible
\n     for   having his\tname entered  in
\n     the list of sales tax practitioners
\n     maintained under Section 71<\/a>, if-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a) he   has  passed an accountancy
\n\t  examination,\t recognized   by
\n\t  the Central  Board of\t Revenue
\n\t  constituted under  the Central
\n\t  Board of   Revenue  Act<\/a>,  1924
\n\t  (IV of  1924), for the purpose
\n\t  of clause  (v)   of subsection
\n\t  (2)  of  Section  288<\/a>\t of  the
\n\t  Income-tax Act,  1961\t (43  of
\n\t  1961), or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  he\t has   acquired\t    such
\n\t  educational qualifications  as
\n\t  are prescribed  by the Central
\n\t  Board of  Revenue  constituted
\n\t  under the  Central   Board  of
\n\t  Revenue Act<\/a>, 1924 (IV of 1924)
\n\t  for the  purpose  of\t  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (vi)\tof  sub-section\t (2)  of
\n\t  Section 288<\/a>  of the Income-tax
\n\t  Act, 1961  (43 of 1961), under
\n\t  Rule\t51   of\t the  Income-tax
\n\t  Rules, 1961, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) (Deleted by G.N. of 4.12.1962).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d) he  was formerly an employee of
\n\t  the Sales  Tax Department,  he
\n\t  is   in the\topinion\t of  the
\n\t  Commissioner a  fit and proper
\n\t  person to   attend before  any
\n\t  Sales Tax authority as a Sales
\n\t  Tax practitioner:”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The requirements  of Rule\t66 go to show that sales tax
\npractitioner, who  has not  got a  degree in law or is not a
\nqualified chartered or cost accountant, will have to acquire
\nsome knowledge\tof accountancy.\t Even  Section\t288<\/a>  of\t the
\nIncome Tax  Act and  the Rules\tframed thereunder, lays down
\nthat  an  Authorized  Representative  who  is  not  a  legal
\npractitioner entitled  to practise  in any  civil  court  in
\nIndia or  a Chartered Accountant or a person qualified to be
\nan auditor  of a  company may be allowed to appear before an
\nIncome\tTax   Authority,  if   he  has\tpassed\tany  of\t the
\naccountancy examinations  recognized by the Central Board of
\nRevenue\t or  has  acquired  a  degree  in  commerce  from  a
\nrecognized University.\tThese rules  go to  show that  apart
\nfrom  lawyers  and  chartered  or  cost\t accountants,  other
\npersons are  allowed to practise in the Sales Tax Department
\nas Sales  tax practitioner  provided they have acquired some
\nknowledge of  accountancy. They will have to pass one of the
\nmany recognized\t accountancy courses  for this purpose. This
\ngoes to\t show that the sales tax practitioner does not carry
\non the\tprofession of law when he appears before a Sales Tax
\nOfficer. His  practice is  more in  the nature of that of an
\naccountant.  Therefore,\t  we  are   unable  to\t uphold\t the
\ncontention that\t merely because the appellant was allowed to
\npractise as  a sales  tax practitioner, he is entitled to be
\nenrolled as  an advocate  by virtue  of\t the  provisions  of
\nclause (aa) of sub-section (3) of Section 24<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It may  also  be  pointed\tout  that  the\tconstruction
\nsuggested by  the appellant will lead to anomaly and must be
\navoided. After\tpassing of the Advocates Act<\/a>, only one class
\nof persons  is entitled\t to practise  the profession of law,
\nnamely, advocates  (Section 29<\/a>). If the phrase ‘practise the
\nprofession of law’ is equated to appearance before the sales
\ntax authority,\tin that\t event, a  chartered accountant or a
\ncost accountant\t or even  a relative  or an  employee of  an
\nassessee will  not be  entitled to appear before a sales tax
\nauthority after\t the Advocates Act<\/a> came into force. Not only
\nthat, if  the contention of the appellant is accepted, after
\nthe appointed  date the\t sales tax practitioner who does not
\nhave a\tdegree in law will not be entitled to be enrolled as
\nan advocate,  will not be able to practise the profession of
\nlaw and\t consequently will  not be able to appear before any
\nSales  tax   authority\tnotwithstanding\t the  provisions  of
\nSection 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  of the  view  that\t there\tis  nothing  in\t the
\nprovisions of  the Bombay  Sales Tax Act or the rules framed
\nthereunder to  suggest that the right of appearance before a
\nsales tax  authority amounts  to entitlement to practise the
\nprofession of  law as  contemplated by\tclause (aa)  of Sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 24<\/a> of the Advocates Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, this  appeal fails  and is  dismissed. There
\nwill be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1602, JT 1996 (4) 224 Author: S Sen Bench: Sen, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: L.M. MAHURKAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/04\/1996 BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nL.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2326,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\",\"name\":\"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996","datePublished":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996"},"wordCount":2326,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996","name":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 April, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T06:55:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-m-mahurkar-vs-the-bar-council-of-maharashtra-and-on-8-april-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L.M. Mahurkar vs The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And … on 8 April, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}