Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
Farida Begam – Appellant
Versus
The Puducherry Government – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(S.M. Subramaniam, C. Kumarappan, JJ.)
1. The lis on hand is all about the Welfare Schemes and the safeguards to be provided to the Advocates enrolled in the State Roll and practising in various Courts across the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
2. The grievances of the Advocates and the Junior Advocates though addressed in many platforms, not redressed suitably. Thus, this Court has impleaded the Government of Tamil Nadu also to ensure that the applications received to settle the Welfare Fund Scheme benefits are paid to the eligible members without causing undue delay.
3. Firstly, regarding the Welfare Fund Scheme in Pondicherry, we have invited Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Advocate, who is holding the post of Chairman of Trust Committee constituted under Section 32 of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 2001. Mr.G.Masilamani, Chairman of Trust Committee would submit that he held several meetings with the Stakeholders and the Government of Puducherry and submitted a proposal for implementation of Schedule-I to the Act and for enhancement of Scheme amount. The proposal is yet to be approved, on account of internal dispute between the Advocates' Association in Pondicherry
The court mandated minimum stipends for Junior Advocates to ensure their livelihood and directed the Bar Council to expedite Welfare Fund enhancements.
The court condoned a 450-day delay in appeal filing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the need for supporting young advocates with welfare schemes for accessing necessary law resourc....
The court ruled that young advocates do not have a legally established right to claim stipends under Article 21, thus they cannot mandate financial assistance from the Bar Councils.
The court established that judicial review does not extend to directing government action in administrative matters, particularly regarding financial assistance and fund allocation.
scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961 as also the various Bar Council Rules and Regulations give primacy to the place of practice and not residence. Governmental policies are amenable to judicial review ....
The legislative intent behind the age limit for eligibility to the Fund was to distinguish Advocates who joined the profession directly from law school without employment with terminal benefits, and ....
The court upheld the validity of the provisions of the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2018 related to the stamp inscribed 'the Jharkhand Advocates’ Clerk Welfare Fund' and the contribu....
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
