SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 261

G.B.PATTANAIK, J.JAGANNADHA RAO, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
K. I. Pavunny – Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Collector, Cochin – Respondent


ORDER

The applicant was a practising advocate at Allahabad mainly on the taxation side and was elevated as Judge of the Allahabad High Court. He retired in July, 1992 and has since been enrolled as Senior Advocate in this Court.

2. While deciding Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1998 some remarks came to be made against his competence as counsel. These application have been given by him that those remarks may be deleted as he was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct before those remarks were made. It is pointed out by him in his applications as under:

"That as already stated that since the brief of the applicant consisted only of a copy of the High Court judgment and no other papers were there and judgment was reserved and remarks against the applicant were ultimately made in the judgment dated 3rd February, 1997. The applicant did not get any opportunity to place the handicapped while arguing the case.

3. Having heard the learned counsel who is appearing in person and having perused the judgment, we allow the applications. Remarks made against the applicant personally in the judgment delivered by this Court on February 3, 1997 shall be treated to have been deleted.

(C.R.)

********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top