Supreme Court: Promotion Suitability Must be Decided by Experts, Courts Cannot Create New Methods  ||  SC: Market Integrity is Paramount; Rule Violators Cannot Escape Liability by Citing Investor Gains  ||  SC: Plaintiff's Reply to Counterclaim in Commercial Suits Must Meet Written Statement Deadline  ||  SC: Pre-2016 Debt Recovery Tribunal Recovery Certificates Cannot Support Insolvency Notices  ||  SC: Children's Court Cannot Try Child as Adult Without Passing a Reasoned Order under JJ Act  ||  SC: Contractual Clauses Denying Interest on Security Deposits Does Not Violate Public Policy  ||  J&K&L HC: Unamended Pleading Loses Effect After Amendment; Party Cannot Benefit From Own Default  ||  Allahabad HC: Wife's Maintenance Need Not be Fixed at 25% of Husband's Net Income  ||  Kerala HC: Social Customs Alone Cannot Prove Bride Entrusted Gold to Husband or In-Laws  ||  Karnataka HC: Century Club Qualifies as a Public Authority under the RTI Act Due to Land Grant    

The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors. v. K.K. Chaubey and Ors. - (High Court of Patna) (30 Sep 2015)

Judicial review finds errors in Patna ruling on Advocates-on-Record

MANU/BH/0833/2015

Civil

Reiterating in some detail the purpose behind judicial review, and evolution over the years of its scope, the Patna High Court determined that unless there was a judicial or legislative scheme preventing Advocates-on-Record in High Courts, similar to those in the Supreme Court, it could not be said that rules relating to eligibility as an AOR were bad in law. The order under review had looked to advocates’ right to plead under the Patna High Court Rules, and the ensuing effects on client and litigant rights.

Relevant : Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sk. Habib MANU/SC/0064/1975 Moran Mar Basselios Cathlicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius MANU/SC/0003/1954 R.K. Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court MANU/SC/1310/2009

Tags : JUDICIAL REVIEW   ADVOCATE   ON RECORD   PLEADING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved