Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 122 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
The petitioner also relied on
the judgment in Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (3)
SCC 85] and submitted that the Apex Court reiterated the position
in Dwarikesh Sugar's case (supra).
State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs A.R. Zakki And Others on 6 December, 1991
28. Moreover, if the petitioner has a grievance against the
listing of cases before a learned Judge, he ought not to have filed a
petition like this on the judicial side. He is an officer of the Court. It
is the duty of the petitioner to submit that grievance before the
learned Judge in that Court itself. The petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in R.Muthukrishnan's case (supra),
in which the Apex Court stated that the lawyers are supposed to be
fearless and independent in the protection of rights of litigants. The
petitioner can submit before the Court concerned about his client's
plight. I am sure that no Judge will decline such prayer if there is a
genuine reason pointed out for an early hearing, of course,
depending upon the time available to that Court. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that the attitude of the petitioner, who
claims that he has got 21 years of practice, approaching this Court
with a writ petition for issuing mandamus to the High Court Judge
and the Registry regarding the listing of cases cannot be accepted.
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs T. Gopalakrishna Murthi & Ors on 25 September, 1975
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. TGopalakrishna Murthi,
(1976) 1 SCR 1008, this Court was construing the provisions of
Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India which empowers
the Chief Justice of the High Court or some other Judge or Officer of
the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the
purpose of prescribing conditions of service of officers and servants of
a High Court and further prescribes that the said rules shall so far as
they relate to salaries, allowances, leaves or pensions require the
approval of the Governor of the State. The question was whether a
writ of mandamus could be issued to the Governor to give his
approval to the rules made by the Chief Justice. This Court answered
the said question in the negative. After holding that although on the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the background of the
conditions which are prevalent in the other States, the Government
could have been well advised to accord approval to the suggestion of
the Chief Justice as the suggestion was nothing more than to equate
the pay scales of the High Court staff with those of the equivalent
posts in the Secretariat, this Court observed that merely because the
Government is not right in accepting the Chief Justices view, and in
refusing to accord approval is not ground for holding that by a writ of
mandamus the Government may be directed to accord the approval."
Prisoners Rights Forum vs High Court Of Judicature At Madras on 11 August, 2014
In
paragraph No.12 (b) of the reply affidavit, the petitioner submits
that, instead of mentioning the name of the case, the Registrar
General mentioned the Judges name in the citation of Prisoners
Rights Forum v. High Court of Judicature at Madras [AIR
2014 Mad 246]. The petitioner says that 'it seems that the
Registrar General has a misplaced sense of confidence as regards
the outcome of the Writ Petition irrespective of his actions'. The
petitioner also stated that the Registrar General is also represented
by a Senior Counsel. To err his human. If a small mistake is
committed while writing the citation, the petitioner ought to have
neglected the same without making a wild allegation against the
Registrar General and the lawyer representing the Registrar
General. The petitioner is making this submission after filing a
W.P (C) No.6912 of 2023 36
frivolous writ petition without producing any supporting documents
to support his case. This type of litigation is to be deprecated.
District Bar Association Dehradun vs Ishwar Shandilya on 28 February, 2020
Once again I am asking, what is the message that the petitioner
wants to give to society? Judges and lawyers are part of the
Judiciary. If there are any internal problems, there are facilities to
redress such issues. Moreover, recently, the apex court in District
Bar Association Dehradun V. Ishwar Shandilya (2023(3) KLT
571(SC) directed all the High Courts to constitute a Grievance
redressal Committee in which the complaints regarding listing/filing
of cases can be submitted. I make it clear that if there is any
genuine grievance to any lawyer or the association of the lawyers
regarding the filing/listing of cases, they can approach the authority
concerned in accordance with law. But the petitioner is not
interested in any of those options. His intention is only a 'Publicity
Interested litigation' to malign judges and the judiciary. Here the
lawyer's prayer framed by St.Thomas More is relevant, which I
extracted at the beginning of this judgment which I am extracting
once again.