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

1994 Supreme(MP) 960

U.L.BHAT, M.V.TAMASKAR
Bar Association, Jhabua – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
None for petitioner; R.K. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for State.

ORDER

U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. By letter dated 11.10.1991, Bar Association, Sheopurkala requested .the High Court to establish Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Sheopurkala or alternatively to establish a link Court at that place to deal with the cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the 1989 Act'). Subsequently, a telegram was received from the Bar Association, Jhabua praying that in the absence of or during long leave of a Special Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge may hear urgent bail petitions under the 1989 Act. On the direction of the Chief Justice, the letter and the telegram have been treated as Writ Petition. Notices have been issued to the learned Advocate General, President High Court Bar Association, President of the Local District Bar Association and President of the Jhabua Bar Association. Except the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the learned Advocate General, none of the other persons to whom notices have been issued, are present.

2. Difficulties have arisen in dealing with cases not only under the 1989 Act but also under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ac



















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