Top court draws up fresh rules for ap­point­ing se­nior ad­vo­cates

Con­sti­tutes a per­ma­nent panel led by CJI to gather in­for­ma­tion on prospec­tive can­di­dates

DNA (Daily News & Analysis) Mumbai Edition - - FRONT PAGE -

ative from the bar. The com­mit­tee would in­clude the At­tor­ney Gen­eral to de­cide on se­nior ad­vo­cates in the top court while the Ad­vo­cate Gen­eral would be con­sulted re­gard­ing High Court ap­point­ments.

Num­ber of years in prac­tice, num­ber of judg­ments the lawyer has been part of, pro bono work done by the lawyer along with a test of his per­son­al­ity would be cri­te­ria for el­i­gi­bil­ity. The lawyer-can­di­date will have to give an in­ter­view be­fore a fi­nal de­ci­sion is taken.

The court, how­ever, did away with the in­come cri­te­rion, say­ing, “…we do not see why we should in­sist on any min­i­mum in­come as a con­di­tion of el­i­gi­bil­ity. The in­come gen­er­ated by a lawyer would de­pend on the field of his prac- tice and it is pos­si­ble that a lawyer do­ing pro bono work or one who spe­cialises in a par­tic­u­lar field may gen­er­ate a lower re­turn of in­come... In­sis­tence on any par­tic­u­lar in­come, there­fore, may be a self- de­feat­ing ex­er­cise.”

On min­i­mum age, the SC said: “In­so­far as age is con­cerned, we are in­clined to take the view that in­stead of hav­ing a min­i­mum age with a pro­vi­sion of re­lax­ation in an ap- pro­pri­ate case, it would be bet­ter to go by the norm of 10 years prac­tice at the Bar, which is also what is pre­scribed by Ar­ti­cle 217 of the Con­sti­tu­tion...”

The bench also clar­i­fied that names of can­di­dates would be posted on­line to in­vite sug­ges­tions from var­i­ous stake­hold­ers. Fi­nally, the names up for con­sid­er­a­tion and ap­proved by the per­ma­nent com­mit­tee will be put be­fore the full court (in­volv­ing SC/HC judges as the case may be) which will then de­cide to ac­cord the des­ig­na­tion unan­i­mously or through ma­jor­ity in a se­cret bal­lot.

The court’s de­ci­sion was taken on the heels of a pe­ti­tion filed by se­nior ad­vo­cate Indira Jais­ing.

The year 2017 has not been par­tic­u­larly good for the Lodha De­vel­op­ers, at least not on le­gal front where one of Mumbai’s big­gest real es­tate firms has had to deal with at least three cases that brought their name un­der cloud.

The first big blow for the real es­tate big­gie was a Ma­ha­rash­tra Real Es­tate Reg­u­la­tory Author­ity or­der that forced the Lod­has to re­fund booking amount to a com­plainant who had can­celled his booking in Lodha’s Ul­tima project in Thane.

A home­buyer

Roshan Nawale had lodged a com­plaint with the newly in­stalled hous­ing reg­u­la­tory author­ity say­ing the de­vel­oper was not re­turn­ing his money even though he had can­celled his booking at Ul­tima in Thane. Sens­ing trou­ble, Lodha De­vel­op­ers ate the hum­ble pie and agreed to re­turn his money on the day of the hear­ing Septem­ber 12 and paid Rs 1.08 lakh.

Another com­plaint against Lodha De­vel­op­ers was heard by Ma­haRERA on Oc­to­ber 10. The com­plainant Sheo Pratap Singh in­formed the author­ity that he wished to with­draw the com­plaint to pur­sue the mat­ter in a con­sumer court.

“Dur­ing the hear­ing, the com­plainant ap­peared through his Ad­vo­cate Ab­hishek Gokhale and Ad­vo­cate Rahul Ward­han rep­re­sented re­spon­dent. The com­plainant filed an ap­pli­ca­tion for with­drawal of com­plaint as he wants to ap­proach the Con­sumer Court.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.