• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Friday, March 5, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

Lawyers should discourage clients from making baseless allegations against Judges

by Law Trend
February 17, 2021
in Court Updates, Trending Stories
2 min read
madras hc
677
SHARES
1.9k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently observed that lawyers should discourage their clients from raising baseless allegations against judicial officers and lawyers should not incorporate such allegations in pleadings.

This observation was made when the Court was hearing a revision petition, wherein the petitioner stated that he was not given sufficient time to argue his case in physical mode.

Background:

In the instant case, the petitioner was booked for offences u/s 7,12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and was facing trial.

The petitioner alleged that the Trial Court dismissed his application u/s 91 of CrPC without hearing his arguments and the impugned order should be set aside.

Petitioner’s Counsel clarified that he was not blaming the Trial Court judge.

The Court stated that the Counsel’s act of withdrawing the allegation was appreciable, but since the said ground was taken up in the original petition, the Court has to deal with it.

Observations of the Court

Hon’ble Court observed that due to the pandemic, the entire country was working virtually. The petitioner’s statement that he could not argue his case elaborately was against the Supreme Court orders.

The Court further observed that Section 91 does not give an absolute right to accused to summon any documents. If the Court is satisfied that the summoning of documents was necessary, it can issue orders.

Order

The Bench held that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court order, and the instant revision was filed by the petitioner to protract and prolong the proceedings. The Court proceeded to dismiss the petition.

Also Read

  • Advocates Are Barred From Doing Money Lending Business With Their Clients
  • Advocate Acting on Instructions of Client Not Liable for Defamation
  • What is the procedure to withdraw a Vakalatnama?
  • Court Grants Bail to Rape Accused on Promise to Marry the Victim as She attains Majority
  • Is Using Stickers of ‘‘Advocate’’ on Vehicle legally Allowed?
Tags: judgeslawyersmadras high court

Related Posts

supreme court 2021 2
Judgements

Can Non-explanation or False Explanation by Accused U/s 313 CrpC be used to complete chain of Circumstances? SC

March 4, 2021
ncdrc
Court Updates

Can Consumer Court Entertain Complaint After Adjudication of Dispute in Arbitration? NCDRC

March 4, 2021
Supreme Court 2021
Trending Stories

We Should Send a Message to the Bar that the Apex Court Will Not Adjourn the Matter for Nothing: SC

March 4, 2021

Advertisement

POPULAR NEWS

  • Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala lawtrend

    Bombay HC Judge who gave “Skin to Skin” POCSO Verdict loses Judgeship Confirmation

    5733 shares
    Share 2293 Tweet 1433
  • Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5118 shares
    Share 2047 Tweet 1280
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4830 shares
    Share 1931 Tweet 1207
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4702 shares
    Share 1881 Tweet 1176
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3271 shares
    Share 1308 Tweet 818
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In