Appointments & TransfersNews

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ.  resolves to recommend that Mr. Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, Judge, Telangana High Court, be transferred, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Punjab & Haryana High Court.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 28-08-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday U. Lalit, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the application for stay as filed by the appellants herein was rejected.

The appellants had filed a writ petition against the State in the High Court, and during the pendency of the same, application was filed for grant of ad-interim stay in relation to the subject matter of the land in question. By the order impugned, the High Court declined to grant the ad-interim stay. Against the said order, the appellants filed the instant appeal by way of special leave.

The Supreme Court, on perusing the record of the case, observed that no adequate reason was given in the order impugned for not granting stay. The reason given did not justify the rejection, having regard to the nature of the controversy involved. In short, justifiable reasons to support either grant or rejection need to be stated, keeping in view the facts and the law applicable to the controversy involved. It was not so found in the order impugned. Resultantly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal; set aside the order impugned, and remanded the case to the High Court to decide the matter afresh. [Birwati Chaudhary v. State of Haryana,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1020, dated 20-08-2018]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Krishna Murari, Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Ministry  of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in  exercise  of the powers  conferred  by Article  223 of the Constitution  of India appointed  Shri Justice  Ajay  Kumar  Mittal, senior-most   Judge  of Punjab  and Haryana  High  Court,  to perform  the duties  of the office  of the Chief Justice  of that  High  Court with effect  from  04th   May,  2018  consequent   upon  the retirement   of Shri Justice  Shiavax  Jal Vazifdar,  Chief Justice,  Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Ministry of Law and Justice

 

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of the Addition Sessions Judge, the Court said that it is duty of the lawyer to make a balance between client’s interest and administration of justice

The Petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (Power to summon material witness, or examine present person) to recall a witness in a rape case on the ground that the accused was not given an opportunity to take cross examination of three witnesses. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined and the power under Section 311 could not be used to harass a witness in a rape case.

In the Revision Petition, the Council was asked to place on record the questions he wanted to ask the witnesses. Repeated adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, but still he did not place the document before the Court. The State Council, Mr. S.K. Yadav, submitted that such an attempt by the Petitioner is only to delay the trial.

The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Petitioner has taken contrary stand in the lower Court and the High Court and has also given false reasons at different point of time during the trial. The bench comprising of Mrs Anita Chaudhry J., further observed that “The lawyer’s duty towards his client has to be balanced. They owe a duty to the Court and to the administration of justice. The lawyer who filed the petition and represented the petitioner till the last hearing had mislead the Court. The legal practitioner’s duty to promote his client’s interest must never transcend his duty to promote the interest of justice and truth. He also has a paramount duty towards the Court. His duty is to uphold the interest of justice and it should be of absolute condour.” [Harpreet  v. State of Haryana,2016 SCC OnLine P&H 4035decided on 03.06.2016]