REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHIV KUMAR AKELA ADVOCATE Appellant

V/S

REGISTRAR SOCIETIES FIRMS AND CHITS UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860 ALLAHABAD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST AND ORS. V. V.R.RUDANI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KAZI LHENDUP DORJI V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER,KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS,LTD. SULTANPUR U.P. V. SATRUGHAN NISHAD AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
DATTARAJ NATHUJI THAWARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR AKELA AND ORS. V. REGISTRAR,SOCIETIES FIRMS AND CHITS AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN DAS VS. ADVOCATE GENERAL ORISSA ANA ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE VS. FUEL LORRY OWNER AND MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID AND ADVICE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV DATTA DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING NEW DELHI VS. KAILASH VASDEV ADVOCATE KITTY KUMARAMANGALAM ADVOCATE [REFERRED TO]
U P SALES TAX SERVICE ASSOCIATION VS. TAXATION BAR ASSOCIATION AGRA [REFERRED TO]
S P ANAND INDORE VS. H D DEVEGOWDA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH [REFERRED TO]
T C MATHAI VS. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL BIOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
PREM SURANA VS. ADDITIONAL MUNSIF AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
EX CAPT HARISH UPPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
B SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A UMARANI VS. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [REFERRED TO]
ZEE TELEFILMS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SAIL VS. MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
TRILOKI NATH S T O GRADE II CHECK POST DRUMMOND GANJ MIRZAPUR VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY BIHARI SRIVASTAVA V. U.P. POSTAL PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MADRAS VS. AMANULLAKHAN ADVOCATE SALEM 1 [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY PRAKASH SAHAY LALAN VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. In the writ-petition before us, we are called upon, to deal with an issue which is both disturbing as well as vital to the 'administration of Justice'.

(2.) PETITIONERS are 'regular legal practitioners' in High Court, Allahabad. One of them, Ms. Sadhna Upadhyaya, is the former Secretary of HCBA (HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD), which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as amended in the State of U. P. ). They are undisputedly members of Allahabad High Court 'bar'. These 'advocates' on their behalf and on behalf of other 'advocates', ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad are aggrieved and complain of being deprived of their 'rights' and 'privileges' by none else but 'advocates'-who are not ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad and/or not in legal profession at all, for convenience-collectively referred to as 'nra' (Non Resident Advocates ). They have approached this Court aspiring for protection and expect the Court to save them from being exploited by 'nra' and to enable them to enjoy their privileges and rights in law and enable 'bona fide' and 'genuine' legal practioners of Allahabad High Court (particularly members of HCBA) to manage the 'bar' in its pursuit to secure 'aims and Objects' enshrined under 'bye Laws' of HCBA, titled HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION RULES (hereinafter called-HCBA Rules ). It is a strange and paradoxial situation in the 'bar'.

(3.) THE petitioners lament over prevailing status of the BAR wherein 'regular-legal practitioners' are, like outsiders forced to sit on fence as 'moot spectators' in the affairs of HCBA. Such a 'governing Body' of HCBA has no concern with the 'aims and Objects' set out in HCBA Rules. Facilities/privileges extended by the High Court to the Advocates practicing in Allahabad High Court are misappropriated with impunity.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHIV KUMAR AKELA ADVOCATE Vs. REGISTRAR SOCIETIES FIRMS AND CHITS UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860 ALLAHABAD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address