Korba Metals And Conductors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2015
That can be no ground for adjournment as observed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish
Uppal Vs. Union of India and others - 2003(2) SCC
45 (Para 35).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1869 (1.31 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.
District Bar Association Dehradun vs Ishwar Shandilya on 28 February, 2020
Harish Uppal (supra), the Bar Council of India is enjoined
with a duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for
Advocates. It is further observed that this would mean that the Bar Council of
India ensures that advocates do not behave in an unprofessional and unbecoming
manner. Section 48 of the Advocates Act gives a right to the Bar Council of India
to give directions to the State Bar Councils. It is further observed that the Bar
27
Associations may be separate bodies but all advocates who are members of such
associations are under disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Councils and thus the
Bar Councils can always control their conduct. Therefore, taking a serious note of
the fact that despite the aforesaid decisions of this Court, still the lawyers/Bar
Associations go on strikes, we take suo moto cognizance and issue notices to the
Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils to suggest the further course of
action and to give concrete suggestions to deal with the problem of
strikes/abstaining the work by the lawyers. The Notices may be made returnable
within six weeks from today. The Registry is directed to issue the notices to the
Bar Council of India and all the State Bar Councils accordingly.
Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022
(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 731], Harish Uppal [Harish Uppal v. Union of India,
(2003) 2 SCC 45] and Resolution of Chief Justices' Conference and
observations hereinabove and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in
place on the administrative side as well as on the judicial side for speeding
up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and
appeals pending in the High Courts.”
Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh vs State Of Punjab, 2005 (7) SCC
387:
Praveen Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2018
"46. In Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India [(2003) 2 SCC 45],
this Court held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a
call for boycott of courts nor can they abstain from the Courts. Calls
given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot
require the court to adjourn the matters. Strike or abstaining from
court is unprofessional. Even though more than 15 years have passed
after the said judgment was rendered, the judgment of this Court is
repeatedly flouted and no remedial measures have been adopted.
Regulation of right of appearance in courts is within the jurisdiction
of the courts. This Court also asked the Law Commission to suggest
appropriate changes in the regulatory framework for the legal
profession. The Law Commission has submitted 266th Report. The
problem continues seriously affecting the rule of law.
Sri H K Sujay vs State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2024
30. Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices of all
the High Courts to forthwith take appropriate steps
consistent with the directions of this Court in Hussainara
Khatoon (7) [Hussainara Khatoon (7) v. State of Bihar,
(1995) 5 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 913] , Akhtari
Bi [Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 714] , Noor Mohammed [Noor
Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 : (2013) 2 SCC
(Civ) 754] , Thana Singh [Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of
Narcotics, (2013) 2 SCC 590 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 818]
, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee [Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 39] , SCC para 15, Imtiyaz Ahmad [Imtiyaz
Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688 : (2012) 1 SCC
(Cri) 986] , [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2017) 3 SCC
658 : (2017) 3 SCC 665 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 311 : (2017)
2 SCC (Civ) 318 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 228 : (2017) 2 SCC
(Cri) 235 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 724 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S)
731] , Harish Uppal [Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003)
2 SCC 45] and Resolution of Chief Justices' Conference and
observations hereinabove and to have appropriate
monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side
as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of
cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and
appeals pending in the High Courts."
Suo Moto vs Manoj Sharma And Anr on 12 August, 2013
8. The above conclusions reached by the Delhi High Court were held to be absolutely correct and were approved in toto by the Apex Court in case of Ex.Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 45. There is no need to reiterate the said observations herein. Suffice is to say that such a misconduct on the part of the lawyers trying to thwart the judicial proceedings, and obstruct the course of justice, by trying to threaten, overawe and overpower the court, by using insulting, threatening and disrespectful language in the court room amounts to criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the said Act.
Praveen Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2018
23. Therefore, in these circumstances, to give effect to the mandate of
the decision of the Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal's case
(supra), we pass the following directions so that the functioning of courts
is conducted smoothly in discharge of its duties of administration of
justice:
K A Rajgopal vs State Of Karnataka on 28 August, 2024
30. Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices of all
the High Courts to forthwith take appropriate steps
consistent with the directions of this Court in Hussainara
Khatoon (7) [Hussainara Khatoon (7) v. State of Bihar,
(1995) 5 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 913] , Akhtari
Bi [Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 714] , Noor Mohammed [Noor
Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 : (2013) 2 SCC
(Civ) 754] , Thana Singh [Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of
Narcotics, (2013) 2 SCC 590 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 818]
, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee [Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 39] , SCC para 15, Imtiyaz Ahmad [Imtiyaz
Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688 : (2012) 1 SCC
(Cri) 986] , [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2017) 3 SCC
658 : (2017) 3 SCC 665 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 311 : (2017)
2 SCC (Civ) 318 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 228 : (2017) 2 SCC
(Cri) 235 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 724 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S)
731] , Harish Uppal [Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003)
2 SCC 45] and Resolution of Chief Justices' Conference and
observations hereinabove and to have appropriate
monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side
as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of
cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and
appeals pending in the High Courts."
Vishwanath Swami vs Bar Council Of India on 24 April, 2013
(b) All the Bar Associations in the State of
Karnataka some of whom are served and are
represented by counsel herein, are directed to
implement the resolution dated 29/09/2002,
passed by the Bar Council of India, as directed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Harish Uppal
(supra), including the establishment of grievance
redressal Committees within a period of three
months from today.