Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, A.N. RAY, AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Madhu Limaye and another, Petitioners
Versus
Ved Murti and others, Respondents. Mr. Raj Nararain, Intervener.
Writ Petn. No. 307 of 1970, D/- 10-9-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Madhu Limaye in person (Petitioner No. 1). M/s. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and Pratap. Singh, Advocates, for Petitioner No. 2. Mr. C. K. Daphtary and Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocates (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with them), for Respondents. Mr. Niren De, Attorney-General for India (M/s. R. H. Dhebar, H. R. Khanna, S. P. Nayar and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Attorney General for India and Union of India. M/s. S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, Advocates and Mr. Raj Narain in person, for Intervener.
Judgment
ORDER: Mr. Raj Narain yesterday insisted on arguing in Hindi. He was heard for sometime with a view to see whether we could follow him simply, because this is a habeas petition involving the liberty of the citizen. Because of the importance of the case, we heard him for sometime, but the Attorney-General, Mr. Daphtary who is opposing him and some of the members of the Bench could not understand the arguments made in Hindi yesterday. In these circumstances, it is futile to permit Mr. Raj Narain to continue his arguments in Hindi. He has a counsel Mr. D. P. Singh already in attendance and helping him. We suggested the following three alternatives,
(a) that he may argue in English; or
(b) he may allow his counsel to present his case; or
(c) he may give his written arguments in English
2. The language of this Court is English (see Art. 348 of the Constitution). If Mr. Raj Narain is not agreeable to these suggestions, and we understand, he is not, the only alternative for us is to cancel his intervention. We order accordingly.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 2608
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
