Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Lalit Mohan Das vs Advocate-General, Orissa on 29 November, 1956

Pramatha Nath Mitter And Ors. vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of The High ... on 31 May, 1961

22. The argument that the legal professions have no legal right to maintain this application may be disposed of briefly. No doubt that unless there is a legal right in the applicant, no application for Mandamus can lie That is settled law. The Rules of this Court, made under Letters Patent, and the Charter and the Rule-making powers of this High Court, and Section 8 of the Bar Councils Act, enrolling Advocates and giving them the right to practise (using the expression "entitled as of right to practise in any High Court") before this Court give them the legal right to see that the institution which has enrolled them under statutory powers is carried on and conducted according to law and the Rules made thereunder for purposes of such statutory right to practise. IF the law and the Rules framed provide that the High Court has to fix and regulate its Vacation and Sittings according to certain laws, then if some other authority, say, for example, the Vice-Chancellor of the University who has no legal authority over this Court, starts opening and declaring Vacations for this Court, then I feel the legal professions are entitled to move for Mandamus on the ground that the institution in which their members have enrolled themselves, be run according to law. Certainly their legal right to practise according to law is affected. It is needless to add that Advocates and Solicitors are regarded as Officers of the Court as held in Lalit Mohan Das v. Advocate-General of Orissa, 1957 SCR 167 at P. 177 : ((S) AIR 1957 SC 230 at p 254) and other cases like Romesh Chandra Basu v. Jadab Ch Mitra and In the matter of Attorneys, 29 Cal WN 1047 at P. 1051 : (AIR 1925 Cal 964 at pp. 965-966). and as such they have a legal right to see that the Court opens and closes according to law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, ... vs S.N.A. Nazareth on 7 November, 1997

In Lalit Mohan v. Advocate General, Orissa, , when the appellant made imputations of partiality and unfairness against the Munsif in open Court, the Supreme Court observed that scandalising the Court in such manner is really polluting the very fountain of justice and such conduct of the appellant was not a matter between a member of the Bar and a member of judicial service, but it brought into disrepute the whole administration of justice and it was held to be highly reprehension.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V R Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next