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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 329

P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
R. Mahendiran – Appellant
Versus
Principal District Judge, Namakkal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Neelakandan, Advocate. For the Respondent:M. Santhanaraman, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in RoC. No. 8325/A/2019 dated 27.06.2019 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same; consequently direct the Respondent to issue Registration Certificate by registering the Petitioner as Advocate Clerk by considering the Petitioner's Application dated 10.06.2019 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.)

Heard Mr. R. Neelakandan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Petitioner was working as Advocate Clerk under Thiru. S.Periyasamy, Advocate, Namakkal in Tamil Nadu. The registration of the Advocate Clerks in the State of Tamil Nadu is governed by the Advocates' Clerks Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), made by this Court in the exercise of powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which has come into force with effect from 01.12.1988. In a

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