Judges Seniority Cannot Be Fixed On Basis Of Roster Points
The Madras High Court has held that the seniority of judges cannot be decided on the basis of roster points and must be evaluated on the basis of the marks obtained in the recruitment exam. The decision was given by the Division Bench composed of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy. The judgement has stated that any fixation or re-fixation of seniority made according to law, prior to 2009 would remain unaffected by the order. The case was of N Vasudevan & Ors. V. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature, Madras & Ors.
What do you think of this case?
CJI N V Ramana Directs Law Firms To Aim For Diversity, Inclusivity and Community Reach
The Chief Justice of India, Justice N V Ramana, has urged the law firms in India to aim for diversity, inclusivity and community reach and take up more pro bono cases. He also emphasised the need for recruiting more female lawyers and making institutional changes. He stated that while competing on an international scale, one must not forget to look inwards. He propagated for scholarships and other competitive ways to identify talented students in regional law schools.
What do you think about this case?
SC: No Bar In Permitting Amendment Of Pleadings In CIRP Applications Under Section 7 IBC
The Supreme Court has stated that there is no bar in permitting amendment of pleadings or filing additional documents in a CIRP application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The case was of Dena Bank V. C Shivakumar Reddy. The decision was given by a Bench composed of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V Ramasubramaniam. In this case, the Bench observed that the Adjudicating Authority may decline the request if there is inordinate delay, depending on the facts of the case.
What do you think about this case?
Supreme Court To Examine If NGT Has Jurisdiction To Take Suo Motu Cognizance Without Application
The Supreme Court is set to examine whether NGT has the required jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance without an application. The case is of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai V. Ankita Sinha. The case was being heard by a Bench composed of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The matter is to be considered by the Bench on August 25. Justice Khanwilkar said that according to Section 14(1) of the Act, the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment), is involved.
What do you think about this case?
SC: Suit For Eviction Maintainable Before Waqf Tribunal If Tenant Disputes That Property Is Not A Waqf
The case was of Telangana State Waqf Board V. Mohamed Muzafar. The decision was given by Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Hemant Gupta. In this case, the Court held that a suit for eviction was maintainable before a Waqf Tribunal if the tenant disputes that the property in question is not a waqf. The reason given was that the question whether a property belongs to wakf is exclusively triable by the Wakf Tribunal. The appellants were represented by Advocate Aditi Chaubey and the respondents were represented by Advocate Raavi Venkata Yogesh.
What do you think of this case?
Allahabad HC Refuses To Direct Time Bound Disposal Of A Case
The Allahabad High Court has refused to direct the timely disposal of a case. The decision was given by Justice Vivek Kumar Birla. The case was of Prafull Kumar V. State of UP & Anr. The Court opined that lawyers cannot take the working of the Court for granted, charge professional fees only to abstain from work and later direct the Court to decide the case within a specific period. The Court said that if such directions and/or a writ of mandamus would be issued, the Court/Authority would be under the threat of Contempt of Court, if the case is not decided.
What do you think of this case?
Allahabad High Court Dismisses Lawyer's Plea For Personal Security
The case was of Abhishek Tiwari V. State of UP. The decision was given by Justice D K Singh. The plea was dismissed. In this case, the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed his plea challenging the State Government's order refusing to provide him personal security. It was said that the reason for this dismissal was that the petitioner was seeking protection to flaunt his VIP status and there was no real threat in existence.
What do you think of this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
