Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)

Sudhakar Govindrao Deshpande vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 23 April, 1985

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".
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - S V Manohar - Full Document

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

10. Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the period spent in pursuing a full time Master's program in law cannot be considered as a period during which respondent no.5 was in active practice as an advocate. He submitted that during the said period, respondent no.5 was not engaged in acting or pleading in a court of law as an advocate; thus, could not be considered to be in practice. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik & Ors.2 and drew the attention of this Court to paragraph no.91 of the said decision wherein the Supreme Court had referred to the earlier decision in the case of Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.3 and observed that the "test was not whether such person is engaged on terms of salary or by payment of remuneration but whether he is engaged to act or plead on its behalf in a court of law as an advocate... If he is not acting or pleading on behalf of his employer then he ceases 2 (2013) 5 SCC 277 3 (1999) 1 SCC 330 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal WP(C) No.3467/2023 Page 8 of 31 Signing Date:10.04.2023 2023:DHC:2409-DB to be an advocate." He submitted that the answer to the question whether a person was in practice is dependent on the functions performed by the said person. He contended that pursuing a Master's course in law could not be considered as practice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 98 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 Next