Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Delhi Bar Association - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 4-5 & 9 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.437/2000
Decided On : 12-08-2002
ORDER :
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
1. In the affidavit dated 9th August, 2002 filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, it has been stated that a large number of rooms in the Tis Hazari complex are still being occupied by the Delhi Government. In our opinion, the Tis Hazari complex was constructed only for the functioning of the subordinate courts. Except for the court rooms, chambers for the Judges and the Lawyers and the Bar Association, the premises are not meant to be used for any other purposes. It is possible that it may be necessary to have some other agencies occupying a few rooms in connection with the functioning of the courts like Treasury, Prosectuor's office etc. As to what are the functionaries which need to exist in the Tis Hazari complex and how many rooms should be given to them in order to enable the courts to function efficiently has to be decided. We request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to examine this aspect and determine which are the rooms which can be retained by the Delhi Government for what purpose in connection with the functioning of the Court. Apart from the said rooms so identified by the Chief Justice, all the other rooms shall have to be vacated by the occupants thereof. The Chief Justice is requested to give his Report, if possible, within ten days. To come up on 2nd September, 2002.
2. It is made clear that merely because an officer does quasi-judicial work will not make him necessary adjunct of the functioning of a civil court. This aspect will be kept in mind while determining the requirements of the Court. The Tis Hazari complex has to be exclusively a court complex. The petitioner will indicate this order to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Delhi High Court.
IA filed by Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat
3. Adjourned to 2nd September, 2002. In the meantime, the High Court will inform the Court why is it not possible to have video conferencing in regard to remand cases so that it is not necessary for the under trials to be brought to the court complex.
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
