Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

HP HC: No Requirement of Practicing for 7 Years for Appointment as District Judge - (15 Jul 2024)

SERVICE

Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India does not require continuous practice for seven years as an advocate and it merely stipulates that the candidate must have seven years of practice and be an advocate on the date of the application and appointment.

Tags : HIMACHAL PRADESH HC   A. 233(2) OF COI   DISTRICT JUDGE   7 YEARS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved