Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Allahabad High Court Prohibited Two Advocates From Entering Premises and Restrained From Practicing Law and Bar Association expelled Both Advocates

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Allahabad High Court has taken decisive action against misconduct by legal professionals within court premises, emphasizing the enforcement of judicial integrity. Advocates Ran Vijay Singh and Mohd. Asif have been specifically targeted by the court for their disruptive behaviors, leading to significant restrictions on their legal practices.

 

The core legal issue in this judgment pertains to the enforcement of judicial decorum and professional conduct within the judiciary. The court utilized its authority under Chapter XXIV Rule 11(2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to address serious breaches of conduct by the advocates.

During the proceedings of Original Suit No.25 of 2022 at the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prayagraj, the involved advocates led a group that not only disrupted the ongoing hearing but also escalated to physical assaults on litigants and threats to the Presiding Officer. This resulted in the High Court's scrutiny over the conduct of these lawyers and the security protocols within court premises.

On Professional Conduct of Lawyers: Highlighting the inappropriate actions of Ran Vijay Singh and Mohd. Asif, the court expressed deep concerns about their behavior, which it described as a serious challenge to the judicial system's functioning.

On Security Measures: The judgment calls for tightened security measures, instructing the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to ensure adequate protection in the courts to prevent future incidents.

On Restriction of Practice: Reflecting the severity of the misconduct, the court has imposed strict bans on both advocates from entering the District Judgeship premises at Allahabad and from practicing law across Uttar Pradesh.

Notices of contempt were issued to both advocates, questioning their eligibility for continuing legal practice given their conduct. The court also demanded a comprehensive investigation, including a review of CCTV footage, to potentially identify and reprimand other involved parties.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

In Re vs. Ranvijay Singh And Others

Latest Legal News