NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved