Supreme Court gives nod to elevation of 20 Advocates as Judges in 3 High Courts

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the elevation of 20 Advocates as Judges in three High Courts of the country.

As per a communique issued by the Supreme Court Registry, in its meeting held on July 25, the Apex Court approved elevation of six Advocates as Judges in Telangana High Court, one in Orissa High Court and 13 as Judges in Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The names of Advocates elevated as Judges in Punjab and Haryana High Court are as follows:

  1. Nidhi Gupta;
  1. Sanjay Vashisth;
  2. Tribhuvan Dahiya;
  3. Namit Kumar;
  4. Harkesh Manuja;
  5. Aman Chaudhary;
  6. Naresh Singh @ Naresh Singh Shekhawat;
  7. Harsh Bunger;
  8. Jagmohan Bansal;
  9. Deepak Manchanda;
  10. Alok Jain @ Alok Kumar Jain;
  11. Harpreet Singh Brar; and
  12. Kuldeep Tiwari

The names of Advocates elevated as Judges in Telangana High Court are as follows:

  1. Enugula Venkata Venugopal @ EV Venugopal
  1. Nagesh Bheemapaka
  2. Pulla Karthik @ P Elamadhar
  3. Kaja Sarath @ K Sharath
  4. Jaggannagari Sreenivasa Rao @ J Srinivas Rao, and
  5. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

Besides, Advocate Suman Pattanayak was elevated as Judge in Orissa High Court.

The post Supreme Court gives nod to elevation of 20 Advocates as Judges in 3 High Courts appeared first on India Legal.



from India Legal https://ift.tt/fxyPcYz

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A 44-year-old advocate jumps off Saket court building in Delhi

Image
Dead body of a lawyer was found in the Saket Court complex parking on Monday night after he allegedly jumped from the lawyers’ chamber. The lawyer who is deceased was identified as 44-year-old Om Kumar Sharma by the Delhi Police. The police said that prima facie looks like a suicide as a note has also been found. As per the information available, deceased Om Kumar Sharma was suffering from a liver ailment and left a suicide note at the spot. Police received call around 8 pm about the incident afetr the staff at the Saket court saw an advocate jump from the lawyer’s chambers. DCP (South) Ankit Chauhan,said that the police rushed to the spot where the lawyer  was lying near the parking area.” The DCP informed that on Monday evening, the deceased went to a hospital with his wife and later came to court. He left his wife at the main gate and went inside. Around 20-30 minutes later, his wife found out about the incident. Further investigation is still on, the police added. The...
Read more

Supreme Court extends time for Maharashtra Speaker to decide on disqualification plea against NCP Ajit Pawar faction till Feb 15

Image
The Supreme Court today extended the time for the Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide the disqualification petitions lodged by the Sharad Pawar faction against the Ajit Pawar faction of the Nationalist Congress Party.  A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra agreed to extend the time till February 15, 2024.  Earlier on October 30, the apex court had directed the Maharashtra Speaker to decide as per the tenth schedule of the Constitution by January 31, 2024. Two days before the expiry of the deadline, the Speaker approached the top court seeking three weeks additional time.  Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that since the Speaker was occupied with deciding the disqualification petition filed over the Shiv Sena rift, he is not in a position to comply with the given timeline. The Solicitor General said that the proceedings are otherwise over and the Speaker realistically requires three more weeks to di...
Read more

Delhi High Court imposes Rs 10,000 cost on petitioner, says gag order only to be passed in case of threat to fair trial

Image
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on a petitioner seeking gag orders against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran, stating that a gag order should be passed only when it became absolutely necessary for the fairness of a trial. The single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that just because a publication was mentioning the court proceedings, it could not be concluded that it was affecting a fair trial. The court has to carefully see the nature of the publication and find out whether the content of the publication will cause prejudice to the trial or not. It said prejudice by a publication could be divided into two categories, one which threatened to impair the courts impartiality and the other which prejudiced the court’s ability to determine true facts. The single-judge Bench imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on petitioner Ajay Kumar, who sought directions against Hindustan Times and Dainik Jagran to conceal his identity while circulating news or any article...
Read more