Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 701 (6.54 seconds)
Documents citing Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 September, 2014

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

70. The debarment cannot be ordered by the High Court until and unless advocate is prosecuted under the Contempt of Courts Act. It cannot be resorted to by undertaking disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the Rules 14­A to 14­D as amended in 2016. That is a clear usurpation of the power of the Bar Council and is wholly impermissible in view of the decision of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India (supra) that has been followed in all the subsequent decisions as already discussed. There is no doubt about it that the incidents pointed out were grim and stern action was required against the erring advocates as they belied the entire nobility of the lawyer’s profession.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 58 - Cited by 31 - A Mishra - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2020

41. In view of the submission of the learned Attorney General that the 2020 the Rules will be amended to make Advocates eligible for 45 | P a g e appointment to the post of judicial members of the Tribunals, the only question that remains is regarding their experience at the bar. While the Attorney General suggested that an advocate who has 25 years of experience should be considered for appointment as a Judicial member, the learned Amicus Curiae suggested that it should be 15 years. An Advocate of a High Court with experience of ten years is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court as per Article 217 (2) of the Constitution of India. As the qualification for an advocate of a High Court for appointment as a Judge of a High Court is only 10 years, we are of the opinion that the experience at the bar should be on the same lines for being considered for appointment as a judicial member of a Tribunal. Exclusion of Advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members, is therefore, contrary to Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010)19 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2015)20. However, it is left open to the Search-cum-Selection Committee to take into account in the experience of the Advocates at the bar and the specialization of the Advocates in the relevant branch of law while considering them for appointment as judicial members.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - L N Rao - Full Document

Rojer Mathew vs South Indian Bank Ltd And Ors Chief ... on 13 November, 2019

30. I am in respectful disagreement with the Chief Justice that the objects of the parent enactments and the law laid down by this Court in R. K. Jain v. Union of India9, L. Chandra Kumar (supra), Union of India v. Madras Bar Association10, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India11, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India12, Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.13 in essence should be read as the guidelines. One would expect the Union Government to abide by the directions of this Court. However, this expectation has been belied by this very enactment which violates every principle of law laid down by this Court and, as held in the judgments of both my brothers, the Rules framed by the delegatee are violative of the law laid down by this Court. In this background, it is apparent that both the delegator and the delegatee felt that they were not bound by these judgments. This is also apparent from the fact that the Rules framed by the delegatee have not been brought in consonance with the law by the delegator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 260 - Cited by 69 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Revenue Bar Association vs Union Of India on 20 September, 2019

90. The crux of the argument of the Union of India that since the Appellate Tribunal under CGST Act, 2017 and the TNGST Act, 2017 is not a substitute to the High Court, the principles laid down in L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India, reported in 1997(3) SCC 261, Union of India Vs. R.Gandhi reported in 2010(11) SCC 1 and Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India, reported in 2014 (10) SCC 1, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, cannot be accepted in the light of the pronouncements of the Court quoted supra.
Madras High Court Cites 115 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2021

“Exclusion of Advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members, is therefore, contrary to Union of India v. Madras Bar 45 2020 SCCOnline (SC) 962 28 Association (2010)19 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2015)20. However, it is left open to the Search-cum-Selection Committee to take into account in the experience of the Advocates at the bar and the specialization of the Advocates in the relevant branch of law while considering them for appointment as judicial members”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 179 - Cited by 8 - L N Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next