Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.88 seconds)
Vinod Giri vs Sachiv Gram Pranchayat Malhargarh on 14 January, 2020 cites

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979

In criminal jurisprudence, speedy trial has become an indivisible component of Article 21 of the Constitution and it has been held by this Court that it is the constitutional obligation on the part of the State to provide the infrastructure for speedy trial [see Hussainara Khatoon (3) v. State of Bihar and Hussainara Khatoon (4) v. State of Bihar].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 992 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd vs Subhash Kapoor And Others on 14 November, 2000

In Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, after referring to a passage from Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., the Court cautioned thus: (Ramon Services case, SCC p. 126, para 15) "15. ... Nonetheless we put the profession to notice that in future the advocate would also be answerable for the consequence suffered by the party if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call. It is unjust and inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self- imposed dereliction of his advocate. We may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his advocate's non-appearance in court, has also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages but that remedy would remain unaffected by the course adopted in this case. Even so, in situations like this, when the court mulcts the party with costs for the failure of his advocate to appear, we make it clear that the same court has power to permit the party to realise the costs from the advocate concerned. However, such direction can be passed only after affording an opportunity to the advocate. If he has any justifiable cause the court can certainly absolve him from such a liability."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Mahabir Prasan Singh vs M/S Jacks Aviation Private Ltd on 13 November, 1998

In Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, after referring to a passage from Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation (P) Ltd., the Court cautioned thus: (Ramon Services case, SCC p. 126, para 15) "15. ... Nonetheless we put the profession to notice that in future the advocate would also be answerable for the consequence suffered by the party if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call. It is unjust and inequitable to cause the party alone to suffer for the self- imposed dereliction of his advocate. We may further add that the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his advocate's non-appearance in court, has also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages but that remedy would remain unaffected by the course adopted in this case. Even so, in situations like this, when the court mulcts the party with costs for the failure of his advocate to appear, we make it clear that the same court has power to permit the party to realise the costs from the advocate concerned. However, such direction can be passed only after affording an opportunity to the advocate. If he has any justifiable cause the court can certainly absolve him from such a liability."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

O.P.Sharma & Ors vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana on 9 May, 2011

21. While recapitulating the duties of a lawyer towards the court and society, being a member of the legal profession, this Court in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of P&H has observed that: (SCC p. 92, para 17) "17. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of sovereign and democratic India is accounted as extremely vital in deciding that the nation's administration was to be governed by the rule of law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 76 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next