Madras High Court: In the order passed by H.G. Ramesh, R.M.T. Raman, JJ., addressing a writ petition filed on the grounds of challenge against the impugned notification issued by the respondent which revolves around Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Order III Rule 8 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules and Section 125 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

This Court while deciding took into consideration the judgment of a Division Bench in case of Sasikumar v. State by Inspector of Police [Crl. A. No. 198 of 2017] wherein the powers of this court was dealt with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 483 CrPC and also placed further reliance on P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 apropos the administrative side concerning the issue of circular.

After a deep rumination, this Court held that the circular issued by the first respondent, i.e. Registrar General, High Court, Chennai, with regard to certain regulations to be followed at the time of filing vakalat, was not in consonance with Order III, Rule 8 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules and Section 125 of the CPC, and further stayed the pending disposal of the writ petitions. The Court also made itself clear on the subject of issuance of identity card by the Bar Council to be within a reasonable time, and correspondingly the Advocates shall furnish a copy of the same in each of the petitions filed by them, which shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The matter is further listed on 1-2-2018. [In the matter of Registrar General (Respondent), High Court, Chennai, WPs Nos. 117 & 118 of 2018, order dated 3-1-2018]

Must Watch

Obscenity Book Release of EBC

International Arbitration Dialogues

Sr. Adv. Sidharth Luthra on perceiving obscenity

Justice Shakdher on Obscenity book

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.