Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Sudhakar Govindrao Deshpande vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 23 April, 1985

Dheeraj Mor vs Honble High Court Of Delhi on 19 February, 2020

It was observed as follows: (Sudhakar case, Lab IC p. 715, para 16) 31 “16. … the phrase ‘has been an advocate or a pleader’ must be interpreted as a person who has been immediately prior to his appointment a member of the Bar, that is to say either an advocate or a pleader. In fact, in the above judgment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the second group of persons eligible for appointment under Article 233(2) as ‘members of the Bar’. Article 233(2) therefore, when it refers to a person who has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader refers to a member of the Bar who is of not less than seven years’ standing.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 31 - A Mishra - Full Document

Niraj Jaykumar Sharma vs The High Court Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2022

It was observed as follows: (Sudhakar case, Lab IC p. 715, para 16) "16. ... the phrase 'has been an advocate or a pleader' must be interpreted as a person who has been immediately prior to his appointment a member of the Bar, that is to say either an advocate or a pleader. In fact, in the above judgment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the second group of persons eligible for appointment under Article 233(2) as 'members of the Bar'. Article 233(2) therefore, when it refers to a person who has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader refers to a member of the Bar who is of not less than seven years' standing."
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Karan Antil vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

In regard to the interpretation of the expression 'standing at the bar', it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sudhakar Govindrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra & Ors12. In that case, the Bombay High Court had considered the question whether the petitioner, who was serving at the post of Deputy Registrar at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, was eligible for appointment for the post of District Judge. The notice issued by the Bombay High Court inviting application for the post of District Judge had set out the eligibility criteria as: "candidate must ordinarily be an advocate or pleader who has practiced in the High Court of Bombay or courts subordinate thereto for not less than seven years".
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Deepak Aggarwal vs Keshav Kaushik & Ors on 21 January, 2013

39. In support of the above submissions, Mr. P.S. Patwalia relied upon decision of this Court in Satish Kumar Sharma7 and a decision of this Court in Mallaraddi H. Itagi. Reference was also made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Mallaraddi H. Itagi from which the appeals were preferred before this Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that the view taken by Karnataka High Court and upheld by this Court is the view which has been taken by various other high courts, namely, Kerala High Court in K.R. Biju Babu v. High Court of Kerala & Another[10], Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Gurjot Kaur and Others v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Another decided on 14.09.2010, Bombay High Court in Sudhakar Govindrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra and Others[11], Allahabad High Court in Akhilesh Kumar Misra and Others v. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others[12] Rajasthan High Court in Pawan Kumar Vashistha v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur and Another decided on 21.02.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 98 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Shashi Kant Tiwari vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 23 April, 2024

It was observed as follows: (Sudhakar case, Lab IC p. 715, para 16) "16. ... the phrase 'has been an advocate or a pleader' must be interpreted as a person who has been immediately prior to his appointment a member of the Bar, that is to say either an advocate or a pleader. In fact, in the above judgment, the Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the second group of persons eligible for appointment under Article 233(2) as 'members of the Bar'. Article 233(2) therefore, when it refers to a person who has been for not less than seven years an advocate or pleader refers to a member of the Bar who is of not less than seven years' standing."
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document
1