Advocates Act, 1961:  s.36B(l) - Complaint against Advocate - Transfer of disciplinary proceedings, to the Bar Council of India (BCI) ,from the State Bar Council as per mandate enshrined u/s.36B(l)- Whether the BCI instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating thereon, can send it back to the State Bar Council with direction to decide the controversy within a stipulated time - Held: When the language employed u/s. 36B(l) and s.36 are read in juxtaposition, it is clear that the legislature desired that the disciplinary proceedings are to be put to an end within a particular time frame by the State Bar Council and if that is not done, the whole thing gets transferred to the BCI, which is obliged to cause an enquiry - Once original jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred to the BCI, it cannot be said that disposal by BCI would include remand - The legislature never intended either .fi·om the perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent advocate that a complaint transferred to BCI, be again sent back to the State Bar Council. s.36B(l) and s.37 - Distinction between - Held: BCJ exercises F appellate jurisdiction u/s.37 and original jurisdiction u/s.36B(l) - While exercising appellate jurisdiction u/s.37, the BCI can remand the matter to the State Bar Council whereas, uls.36B(l) original jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred to the BCI thus, it cannot be remanded back to State Bar Council - BCI, while exercising original jurisdiction on transfer of a complaint, cannot  exercise appellate jurisdiction. Supreme Court- Directions - Pei:formance of duty by statutory  body - Disciplinary authority of State Bar Councils found to be not disposing of complaints within stipulated period - Held: Responsibility to deal with the disciplinary proceedings is cast on Advocates Act, 1961: s.36B(l) - Complaint against Advocate - Transfer of disciplinary proceedings, to the Bar Council of India (BCJ) ,from the State Bar Council as per mandate enshrined uls.36B(l)- Whether the BCJ, instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating thereon, can send it back to the State Bar Council with direction to decide the controversy within a stipulated time - Held: When the language employed u/s. 36B(l) and s.36 are read in juxtaposition, it is clear that the legislature desired that the disciplinary proceedings are to be put to an end within a particular time frame by the State Bar Council and if that is not done, the whole thing gets transferred to the BCI, which is obliged to cause an enquiry - Once original jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred to the BCJ, it cannot be said that disposal by BCI would include remand - The legislature never intended either .fi·om the perspective of the complainant or from the delinquent advocate that a complaint transferred to BCI, be again sent back to the State Bar Council. s.36B(l) and s.37 - Distinction between - Held: BCJ exercises appellate jurisdiction u/s.37 and original jurisdiction u/s.36B(l) - While exercising appellate jurisdiction uls.37, the BCJ can remand the matter to the State Bar Council whereas, uls.36B(l) original jurisdiction to deal with complaint stands transferred to the BCI thus, it cannot be remanded back to State Bar Council - BCI, while exercising original jurisdiction on transfer of a complaint, cannot G exercise appellate jurisdiction. Supreme Court- Directions - Pei:formance ()f duty by statutory' body - Disciplinary' authority of State Bar Councils found to be not disposing of complaints within stipulated period - Held: Responsibility to deal with the disciplinary proceedings is cast on the State Bar Council, which constitutes its disciplinary committee -  A statutory authority is obliged to constantly remind itself that the mandate of the statute is expediency and the stipulation of" time is mandatory - State Bar Councils asked to take periodical stock of cases with regard to the progress of the Disciplinary committee and find out the cause of delay and guide themselves to act with B expediency so that the Councils, as statutory bodies, do their duty as commanded under the Act. Interpretation of Statutes - On the text and context - Discussed. Advocates - Nobility of legal profession - Held: Ah advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants - He has a paramount duty to his client and client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment.