Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

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