Bombay HC: Clarifies Procedure for Executing Foreign Decrees  ||  Supreme Court: Bureaucratic Delay No Excuse  ||  Supreme Court Grants Full Disability Pension Arrears to Veterans  ||  Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams    

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