A saga of illicit relationship of 5 years between two advocates is twisted into a tale of rape!!!
Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021Citations :
Other Sources :
Tag: Advocate Antics
State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 Mar 2021
In this case before District Sessions Judge Thane, the accused-Advocate is prosecuted for offence of assaulting his own wife with intention to kill her and possessing firearm.
State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 March 2021Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
On 2021-03-26
It was ordered that for mental checkup be done for the accused-Advocate through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.
Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 26 Mar 2021Brajmohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of India on 05 Jan 2021
After overcoming getting himself enrolled with MP Bar Council here, this advocate was cleared to appear for AIBE exam at Gwalior examination center.
Brajmohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of India on 05 Jan 2021Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018
MP High Court held that, a person who is not convicted but merely accused cannot be denied entry into the State Bar Council rolls.
Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018Citation :
Other Sources :
Later on, this advocate had trouble with AIBE exam also here.
Ashem Shyamkesho Singh Vs Thokchom Ranjan Meetei on 08 Jul 2016
Single Judge bench of Manipur High Court held as follows:
From Para 4,
[4] Although it is nowhere mentioned in the application that the same has been filed under the provisions of CPC, it is the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4(2) of CPC which provide that appointment of an Advocate shall be filed in the court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the court by a writing signed by the client or the Advocate as the case may be. An Advocate does not only represent his client but he is also an officer of the court. In any matter in which he is engaged, he has to assist the court till his vakalatnama is determined in accordance with law.
From Para 6,
Ashem Shyamkesho Singh Vs Thokchom Ranjan Meetei on 08 Jul 2016The normal conduct of a client is that if he wishes to change his counsel for some reason or the other, he should approach him for return of the brief and to obtain “No Objection” from him. In case his counsel returns the brief, it is well and good and if he refuses to return the brief or refuses to give “No Objection”, the client may invoke the provisions of Order 3 Rule 4 of the CPC to redress his grievances. However, in the present case, the applicants have failed to that and without determining the appointment of their earlier counsel, Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate, they had moved an application for deleting their names from the array of parties in the writ petition through another Advocate which is unfair and unreasonable on the part of the applicants. The moment an Advocate is engaged, a client is expected to be fair and reasonable to him and ought to give proper instructions accordingly. But in any case and for whatever reasons, the applicants have expressed their view that they don’t want Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to continue as their counsel and that a new Advocate be engaged in his place and since the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said R.D. Saxena’s Case (supra) has categorically observed that for whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular Advocate, it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he would return the brief to the client and it is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative, this court is of the view that this application is liable to be allowed. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the duty of Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate to give “No Objection” so that the applicants could engage a new Advocate of their choice. If Shri Ng. Kumar, Advocate is of the view that the action of the applicants being unfair and unreasonable, has caused prejudice to his professional right and privilege as a counsel, it is open to him to seek appropriate relief and redress his grievance from an appropriate forum.
All India Judges’ Association and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 21 Mar 2002
A 3-judge bench of Supreme Court held that, Law graduates can be eligible for practicing law without having any experience but recommended that the newly hired judges under training for a period not less than 1 year and preferably two years.
All India Judges’ Association and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 21 Mar 2002In the All India Judges’s case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three year’s standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 year of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing we accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges’ cases direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years. The Shetty Commission has recommended Assured Career Progessive Scheme and Functional Scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was mooted to the effect that in order that a Judicial Officer does not feel that he is stagnated there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale.
Citations : [2002 CGLJ 3 361], [2002 SCALE 3 291], [2002 AIR SC 1752], [2002 ALD SC 3 39], [2002 ALT SC 4 41], [2002 AWC SC 2 395], [2002 BLJR 2 1144], [2002 FLR 93 628], [2002 GLR 3 2017], [2002 JCR SC 2 248], [2002 JT SC 3 503], [2001 SCALE 2 327], [2002 SCC 4 247], [2002 SCR 2 712], [2002 SCT SC 2 735], [2002 SLJ SC 2 480], [2002 UPLBEC 2 1246], [2001 LIC 34 2398], [2001 AIR SC 2543], [2002 SLR 3 271], [2002 KANTLJ 3 26], [2002 AIR SC 1706], [2002 SUPREME 3 180], [2002 SLT 3 4], [2002 SCJ 2 598], [2002 SRJ 5 246], [2002 LIC 1473], [2002 LLN 2 781], [2002 UPLBEC 2 480], [2003 ILR KAR 1 321], [2002 BLJ 2 586], [2002 PAT LJR 2 210], [2001 AIR SCW 2543], [2002 BOMCR SC 5 242], [2002 SCC LS 508], [2002 AIR SCW 1706]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125557979/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb5e4b01497114120ad
Regalagadda Venkatesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr
Challenging the ‘3 years Practice Experience as a Qualification for JCJ Post’, an advocate from Andhra Pradesh filed this Writ at Supreme Court.
On 2020-12-30,
Supreme Court issued Notice to the respondents in the meanwhile. Did not stay the operation of the Notification though.
Regalagadda Venkatesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 30 Dec 2020On 2021-01-05,
BCI impleaded itself into the Writ.
Regalagadda Venkatesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 05 Jan 2021On 2021-02-17,
The Writ Petition was withdrawn.
Regalagadda Venkatesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 17 Feb 2021But this issue was resolved at AP High Court itself here, based on Supreme Court decision here.
