Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 December, 2002

R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General Of The High Court ... on 28 January, 2019

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, it was held that regulation of right of appearance in courts was within the jurisdiction of the courts. It was observed, following Pravin C. Shah, that the court must have major supervisory power on the right to appear and conduct in the court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 58 - Cited by 31 - A Mishra - Full Document

District Bar Association Dehradun vs Ishwar Shandilya on 4 October, 2021

“4. The Constitution Bench has, in Ex Capt. Harish Uppal case [(2003) 2 SCC 45] culled out the law in the following terms: (SCC pp. 64 & 71-74, paras 20-21 & 34-36) “20. Thus the law is already well settled. It is the duty of every advocate who has accepted a brief to attend trial, even though it may go on day to day and for a prolonged period. It is also settled law that a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend court because a boycott call is given by the Bar Association. It is settled law that it is unprofessional as well as 3 unbecoming for a lawyer who has accepted a brief to refuse to attend court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council. It is settled law that courts are under an obligation to hear and decide cases brought before them and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike. The law is that it is the duty and obligation of courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike. It is also settled law that if a resolution is passed by Bar Associations expressing want of confidence in judicial officers, it would amount to scandalising the courts to undermine its authority and thereby the advocates will have committed contempt of court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

E Meditek Insurance Tpa Ltd. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 6 August, 2018

Having heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, we are of the view that continuing a strike even on the ground that the strength of the Court is woefully diminished is contrary to Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45 . However, Mr. Uttam Majumdar, Advocate appears before us and offers an unconditional apology. We accept the same.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1