Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-1]

AdalatRefund court fees - The petitioner sought a refund of court fees paid in the trial court, first appellate court, and second appellate court after the High Court decided the second appeal based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for a refund, holding that no grounds for refund were made out. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that refund of court fees is permissible only if the case is resolved through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement (including Lok Adalat or mediation), and not in cases of out-of-court settlements. Since the settlement in this case was not reached through any of the aforementioned mechanisms, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of court fees. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's refusal to refund court fees, as the settlement was not reached through a formal dispute resolution mechanism. Jage Ram v. Ved Kaur, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 138Administrative LawCompliance with Court Orders - Delay and Obstination - Harassment of Daily Wage Workers - The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Union Territory, observing that the case presented a "glaring and textbook example of obstination" by state officials who took 16 years to comply with a High Court order. The Court expressed shock at the delay and the repeated harassment of poor daily wage workers through cryptic orders that disregarded the spirit of the 2007 High Court order. While the Court considered imposing exemplary costs and recommending disciplinary action against the delinquent officers, it refrained from doing so as contempt proceedings were pending before the Single Judge. The Court directed the Single Judge to expedite the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis to uphold the majesty and sanctity of law. (Para 2 – 4) Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Abdul Rehman Khanday, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 303AdvocateAdvocates Act, 1961 - A right of an Advocate to appear for a party and to practice in the courts is coupled with the duty to remain present in the court at the time of hearing, and to participate and conduct the proceedings diligently, sincerely, honestly and to the best of his ability. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and they are inherently connected with each other. (Para 18) Supreme Court Bar Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2025 INSC 364Advocates Act, 1961; Section 16(2) - Criteria under - Designation of Senior Advocates – Supreme Court elucidates the true meaning of “ability”, “standing at the Bar” and “special knowledge or experience in law” – Mere longevity of practice or long presence at the Bar held not a rational or major criterion – Assigning points solely on the basis of number of years of practice requires reconsideration. The Supreme Court has authoritatively interpreted the statutory grounds for designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and laid down the following principles: 1. Standing at the Bar is a composite attribute comprising integrity, respect, fairness, courtroom decorum, priority of duty to the court over client, adherence to professional ethics, mentoring of juniors, pro bono work and esteem within the fraternity. It has no correlation with the mere length of practice. Long years at the Bar, with or without substantial appearances, cannot by itself justify designation. 2. Ability encompasses (i) sound and deep knowledge of law, particularly in the practitioner's chosen field(s), (ii) advocacy skills including effective presentation and mastery over cross-examination (where applicable), (iii) scholarly contributions such as writing articles/commentaries, and (iv) the capacity for rational critique of judicial decisions. 3. Special knowledge or experience in law includes recognised expertise in specialised branches such as Arbitration, Insolvency & Bankruptcy, Company Law, Intellectual Property, Taxation, etc. 4. Advocates practising predominantly in Trial/District Courts or before specialised tribunals are not inferior in status and can equally satisfy the statutory criteria. Exceptional drafting skills and proficiency in cross-examination at the trial stage are relevant facets of “ability”. Confining designation only to lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court/High Courts would render the provision arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 5. While honesty and integrity are non-negotiable for every advocate, they are threshold qualities and do not by themselves entitle an advocate to senior designation. The standards for Senior Advocates must be demonstrably higher. The Court expressed the view that the prevailing practice of awarding points primarily on the basis of years of practice does not subserve the object of Section 16(2) and warrants reconsideration. Guidelines and marking systems for designation of Senior Advocates must align with the statutory touchstones of ...

Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 [Part-1]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags