MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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