AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The charges framed, if they were substantiated, would prove no more than negligence on the part of the Vakil''s clerk. It is only fair to the Vakil
to say that he has throughout accepted civil responsibility for his clerk''s negligence to the extent of any proved loss in. consequence of it by the
client. But it has been laid down clearly in England in the case of G.M.C. in the proceedings'' against Mayor Cooke, a Solicitor (1889) 33 Sol. J.
397 and also by a Bench of this Court in a judgment, delivered on the 7th December, 1923, in the matter of Dr. T.C.K. Kurup, Barat Law,
Advocate, High Court, Madras, the Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Phillips and Ramesam, JJ., that negligence , by itself is not
professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we are,
therefore, able to say that there is no case to investigate and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr. Muniawami
Naidu.