Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Bar Council Of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick on 25 January, 1994

B.Ashok vs The Secretary on 7 August, 2015

(iv) In Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 102, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with a case where enrollment was denied to a candidate on the ground that the said candidate has not attended the required lectures, tutorials and moot courts. The Honourable Apex Court has also approved the decision of the Bar Council of India for drawing distinction between a private candidate and a regular candidate. The Honourable Apex Court has observed in the above said judgment as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.Ashok vs The Secretary on 7 August, 2015

(iv) In Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 102, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with a case where enrollment was denied to a candidate on the ground that the said candidate has not attended the required lectures, tutorials and moot courts. The Honourable Apex Court has also approved the decision of the Bar Council of India for drawing distinction between a private candidate and a regular candidate. The Honourable Apex Court has observed in the above said judgment as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Vandana Kandari vs University Of Delhi on 12 July, 2010

Precedents emanating from the Apex Court, including those titled Baldev Raj Sharma vs Bar Council of India, 1989Supp (2) SCC 91, Bar Council of India vs Aparna Basu Mallick,(1994)2SCC102 and S.N. Singh vs Union of India, 2003 IV AD (Delhi) 378, were analysed and applied. It has been opined that the fixation of the minimum percentage of attendance is a matter on which academic bodies, like the University of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, are most competent to decide. It has also been opined that the freedom to abstain from attending 34 per cent of lectures adequately covers eventualities of sickness etc. It appears to us that is beyond cavil that every citizen must comply with the attendance criteria in order to be eligible for promotion to the next academic year. We are in respectful agreement with the decisions mentioned above. The vicissitudes and vagaries of life often cause a delay in achieving an objective that a person has set for himself. It would be foolish to think that such a delay inexorably leads to ruination of the career.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 16 - K Gambhir - Full Document

B.Ashok vs The Secretary on 7 August, 2015

(iv) In Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases 102, the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with a case where enrollment was denied to a candidate on the ground that the said candidate has not attended the required lectures, tutorials and moot courts. The Honourable Apex Court has also approved the decision of the Bar Council of India for drawing distinction between a private candidate and a regular candidate. The Honourable Apex Court has observed in the above said judgment as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Archana Girish Sabnis vs Bar Council Of India on 26 November, 2014

30. Learned counsel appearing for the parties drew our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Bar Council of India and another vs. Aparna Basu Mallick and ors., 26 (1994) 2 SCC 102. The factual background in which that decision was rendered was that the petitioner in that case after obtaining postgraduate degree undertook studies in LL.B. course of Calcutta University as a non-collegiate woman candidate under Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University. On successful completion of the course, she was conferred with the law degree in terms of Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University. Thereafter, she applied to the Bar Council of India for enrolment as an advocate. However, she was informed by the Bar Council of India that she was not entitled to be enrolled as she did not fulfill the condition contained in the Bar Council of India Rules framed under the provisions of the Advocates Act. She challenged the rejection of her application of enrolment before the High Court of Calcutta by way of writ petition on the ground that the same is illegal and invalid and the Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge overruled all the contentions and discharged the rule nisi. Against the said decision, an appeal was preferred 27 before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench held that Rule 1(1)(c) did not lay down any standard of legal education but provided that the law degree obtained from any University in India shall not be recognized for the purpose of Section 24 of the Act unless the conditions specified therein were satisfied. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and against that order, the Bar Council of India moved this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and restored the decision of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. This Court observed as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

M. Ganesan vs The Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu & ... on 25 August, 2022

8. At the outset, it is to be noted that Sections 7, 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(ag) and (ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, provide the required power and authority for the Bar Council of India to prescribe the minimum qualification, standard, inclusive of minimum marks, attendance, curriculum and other incidental qualifications to a Law University and the Law College recognised by it. Accordingly, the Bar Council of India in exercise of its power under sections 7(1)(h)&(i), 24(1)(c)(iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, has introduced the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which has come into effect from 14.09.2008 onwards and Rule 5 of the same, prescribes the eligibility criteria for getting admission into law course. There is no dispute with regard to the validity of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education and the power of the Bar Council of India to frame rules, has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick [(1994) 2 SCC 102].
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Ram Nagina Kisan Mahavidyalay Shiksha ... vs Bar Council Of India on 5 November, 2003

6. Undoubtedly, Bar Council has a control over the legal education and it is necessary to keep up the standard of legal education. The validity of rules framed by the B.C.I. on the subject of maintenance of standard in Legal Education has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of the Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India, 1989 (2) AWC 767 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 1541 and the case of Bar Council of India and Ors. v. Aparna Basu Mallick and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1334. The Apex Court has observed that there is great deal of difference between general Education in Law and a professional Education in Law with the aim of awarding a degree which entitle the enrolment as Advocate.
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

S.S.R.N. Sarma And Anr. vs Registrar (Administration), High ... on 16 June, 1997

7. The Rules framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as Advocates' were considered by the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick (D.N.). The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether a candidate who appeared for the LL.B (Professional) examination as a non-collegiate student without attending lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and obtained the degree in Law after passing that examination was qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate. As a fact, no non-collegiate degree-holder had ever been enrolled as an Advocate after 6-9-75, the date from which the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India came into force. The Supreme Court held that the candidates admittedly did not pursue any regular course of study at any College recognised by the University by attending the law classes, lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and, therefore, they did not comply with the requirements for enrolment as Advocates and that "unless the degree of law was secured consistently with the requirements of the provisions of the Act and the Rules it would not serve as a qualification for enrolment.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - V R Reddy - Full Document

Dr. Rahul S/O Rajendra Mahajan And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 18 October, 1994

8. The learned Counsel for the interveners has also drawn our attention to another Judgment of the Supreme Court in , in the case of Bar Council of India and another v. Aparna Basu. Mallick and others. In that matter students who had passed L. L. B. Examination were not registered as Advocates because they had not satisfied other conditions of attendance in classes, moot Courts, etc. In that Case, the emphasis was on attendance. The common examination at L. L. B. degree was not regarded as a ground for hostile discrimination. The Supreme Court observed. "The policy underlying the provisions of the rules makes it clear that considerable emphasis is laid on regular attendance at the law classes." Such a rule could not be struck down as arbitrary or discriminatory. From this ratio it would be clear that the examination does not form the sole criteria. The experience, the nature of institution, the nature of equipment constitute the basis for this classification.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next