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

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Taruna Saxena – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Table of Content
1. challenge to tribunal's order (Para 2 , 3)
2. right to representation and evidence (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal rights of advocates under act (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. summary procedure in inquiries (Para 11 , 12)
5. objective of the act and tribunal's discretion (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. disposal of petition (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging order dated 26th March, 2021 passed by the ADM, Karkardooma Courts under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, `Act').

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in this case is two-fold:

(i) that advocates are not being permitted to appear before the Tribunal; and

(ii) that evidence is not being permitted to be led before the Tribunal.

4. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Advocate K.G. Suresh v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) No. 21946/2011, decided on 30th March, 2021]. He submits that Section 17 of the Act has been declared to be ultra vires Section 30 of the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961.

5. Insofar

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