G. Sabitha vs. High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad Rep. By Its Registrar General
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Stage:
ORDERS (INCOMPLETE MATTERS / IAs / CRLMPs)
Remarks:
Adjourned [As per R/P IAs dispose of]
Listed On:
31 Jul 2018
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
100178/2018,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
| in WPC No. 9303/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New<br>Delhi) |
|---|
| DHEERAJ MOR<br>Petitioner(s) |
| VERSUS |
| HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI<br>Respondent(s) |
| (ONLY I.A. NO.87185 OF 2019 IN SLP (C) NO.33762 OF 2017 IS LISTED ) |
| WITH<br>SLP(C) No. 33762/2017 (XVI)<br>(IA 87185/2019 FOR APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) |
| Date : 07-06-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today. |
| CORAM :<br>HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI<br>(VACATION BENCH) |
| For Petitioner(s)<br>Mr. Nischal Kumar Neera, Adv.<br>Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR<br>Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. |
| Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR<br>For Respondent(s)<br>Mr. Shubhayu Roy, Adv.<br>For Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR (NP) |
| Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR<br>Ms. Nidhi, AOR |
| Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR (NP)<br>Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad , Adv. (NP)<br>Mr. Piyush Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Vaibhav Shrivastava, Adv.<br>Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, Adv.<br>Mr. Amritesh Raj, Adv. |
| Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR |
| Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR |
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR (NP)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14156/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-02-2015 in WPC No. 9303/2014 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
IA 87185/2019 IN SLP © NO.33762/2017
Heard counsel for the parties.
In paragraph 102 of 'Deepak Aggarwal vs Keshav Kaushik and others' reported in (2013) 5 SCC 277, this Court has clearly held that the expression "if he has been for not less than seven years an advocate" in Article 233(2) of the Constitution is to be construed to mean seven years as an advocate immediately preceding the application.
We are informed that the question has now been referred to a larger Bench. That decision of the larger Bench is awaited.
Since the judgment in the case of Deepak Aggarwal (supra) has not yet been set aside, we are unable to concede to the prayer of the petitioner for an interim order, enabling the petitioner to appear for the examination for direct recruitment from the Bar as District Judge in West Bengal.
The application is disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER
(ANITA RANI AHUJA) COURT MASTER
2