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

1950 Supreme(All) 156

WALI ULLAH, MOOTHAM, WANCHOO
STATE – Appellant
Versus
BRAHMA PRAKASH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.MUKHERJEE, G.S.PATHAK, J.S.GUPTA, Jagnandan Lal, S.S.DHAVAN, SHANTI BHUSHAN, VISHWA MITRA

MOOTHAM, J.

( 1 ) IN this ease notice has been issued to three office-bearer and five members of the executive committee of the District Bar Association, Muzaffarnagar, to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of Court.

( 2 ) ON 20th April 1949, the executive committee held a meeting at which several resolutions were passed- The opening paragraphs of the first resolution were in these words :

"resolved that : whereas the members of the Association have had ample opportunity of forming an opinion of the judicial work of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Judicial Magistrate, and Shri Lalta Prasad, Revenue officer.

It is now their considered opinion that the officers are thoroughly incompetent in law, do not inspire confidence in their judicial work, are given to stating wrong facts when passing orders and are overbearing and discourteous to the litigant public and the lawyers alike. " then followed a number of allegations which were described as "other defects" which were in addition to the defects common to both of them" referred to in that part of the resolution which has been quoted. On the following day a copy of the resolutions was forwarded by the President of the Bar Assoc




































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