Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: 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