Back
Jyoti Sikka – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Legal Remembrancer Dept. of Law and Justice Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Order on C. M. Application No.1 of 2022
1. Office has reported delay of 18 days in filing the Special Appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Chief Standing Counsel representing the sole respondent and have also perused the averments made in the application supported by an affidavit.
3. We are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.
4. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in preferring the Special Appeal is hereby condoned.
Order on C. M. Application No.3 of 2022
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Chief Standing Counsel and perused the averments made in the application with the prayer to grant leave of the Court to file Special Appeal which is supported by an affidavit.
2. Though, the appellant is not a party in the writ petition in which the order dated 02.03.2022 has been passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein, however, since the prayer in the Special Appeal is confined to set aside only that portion of the order where allegedly aspersions have been cast and adverse remarks has been made against the appellant, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal is
Judicial Restraint – While it is of fundamental importance in realm of administration of justice to allow Judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates, and the need to consider the principles of misconduct under S....
Public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective; and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of a....
A procedural order calling for pleadings from parties does not constitute a judgment under Chapter VIII R.5 and is not appealable.
Adverse remarks against advocates must comply with natural justice principles, necessitating an opportunity for the advocate to be heard before such remarks are recorded.
Remarks by higher courts against subordinate judicial officers must be necessary and justified to uphold judicial dignity and independence.
The court emphasized judicial restraint and the necessity to avoid unfounded remarks that could damage an advocate's reputation, recognizing the reasonable apprehension of bias necessitating case tra....
The court affirmed the right of aggrieved parties to intervene and expunge adverse judicial comments, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial impartiality and the necessity of a sound lega....
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
