Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7934/2011
Decision Date: 10-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC329

English हिन्दी - Hindiമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - [2023] 4 S.C.R. 3822023 INSC 329 M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.271C – Interpretation of – Belated remittance of the TDS after deduction, such assessee if liable to pay penalty u/s.271C – Held: No –s.271C(1)(a) shall be applicable in case of failure on the part of the the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB – Words used in s.271C(1)(a) are ‘fails to deduct’ – It does not speak about belated remittance of the TDS – Thus, there shall not be any penalty leviable
SANWARLAL AGRAWAL & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1312/2023
Decision Date: 21-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC149

KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Decree – Execution of – Expansion of decree – Impermissibility of – Parties entered into a joint venture agreement for a project – Each party brought in 10 crores as loans to finance the project – Respondents bid for the entire 50% shareholding of of 36.75 crores which was accepted, reduced in writing by way of email dtd. 28.03.19 – However, disagreement arose as to whether this amount was inclusive of the loan of 10 crores – Suit filed by respondents for declaration that the agreement dtd. 28.03.19 was binding on the
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusSMT. PRIYANKA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3639/2022
Decision Date: 09-02-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC109

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service Law: Death-cum-Retirement gratuity – Payment of – To heirs/dependent of deceased employee, when employee died before he could exercise the option of retirement – Respondent- wife of deceased employee applied for payment of gratuity due to her husband, but the same was at the age of 60 years – Writ proceedings – High Court held that respondent would be entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and to the benefit of death- cum-retirement gratuity being heir of the deceased employee – Justification of – Held: Justified
SATHYANversusSTATE OF KERALA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2363/2023
Decision Date: 11-08-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC703

ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : (i) Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of offi cial witnesses is sustainable in the instant facts? (ii) Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in fi ling the challan can be said to be materially aff ecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower judgement? Abkari Act – s. 8 – Conviction under: Held : No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (offi cial witnesses) – In the instant case, conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORSversusRAJIV AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1278/2023
Decision Date: 24-02-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC159

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Land in question was used by the State for construction of road in the year 1996, however, no compensation was paid and the land was used without acquiring it under the provisions of the 1894 Act – Writ petition filed by respondents-land owners Judge, appellants directed to initiate the process for acquisition of the land in accordance with law – Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the appellants on ground of limitation – Held: When the writ petition and the claim of the land owners to claim the compensation for the
AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKAversusTOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 172/2023
Decision Date: 15-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC232

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA*, J.B. PARDIWALA* Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – ss. 1(3), 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32A, 53, 61, 238 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 – Rule 6 – – ss. 138, 139, 141, 142, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 190, 200, 256, 257, 305, 482 – A demand-cum-legal notice u/s. 138 of the NI Act was issued on behalf of the respondent calling upon the company as accused no.1 and appellant herein as accused no.2 to
DEV GUPTAversusPEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5013/2023
Decision Date: 09-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC695

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Order of the High Court rejecting the appellant’s Writ Petition which had questioned the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission under the 2% sports quota. Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota – Discriminatory
MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5769/2022
Decision Date: 10-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC330

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Constitution of India – The Constitution (Thirty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975 – Art. 371-F – Sikkim State Income-Tax Manual, 1948 – Sikkim (Collection of Taxes and Prevention of Evasion of Payment of Taxes) Act, 1987 – Income Tax ss. 2(35)(a), 2(35)(b), 6(3), 148, 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273, 274,271- B – By a notification dated 07.11.1988 issued u/Art. 371-F(n) of the Constitution, the Income Tax Act, 1961 were extended to the State of Sikkim – The case of the assessees (incorporated under the Registration of
M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD.versusASHOK S DHARIWAL AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 73/2023
Decision Date: 19-01-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC57

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(a) – Prior and post 2019 Amendment – Whether the applicant can be permitted to adduce evidence to support the ground relating to Public Policy in an application filed u/s. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 case, the arbitration proceedings commenced and even the award was declared prior to the amendment of s.34(2)(a) by Act 33/2019, so s.34(2)(a) pre-amendment shall be applicable – In s.34(2)(a) pre-amendment, an arbitral award could be set aside by the Court if the party making
M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI AND ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018
Decision Date: 13-09-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC832

English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. versus RAMBHA DEVI AND ORS - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 2412023 INSC 832 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” – Entitlement to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs, on the strength of Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued  | Direction Issue : Proceedings listed for directions.  |  Bench : 5 Judges
COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAIversusBHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3592/2019
Decision Date: 26-09-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC859

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a Constable of a Railway Protection Force (RPF) can be treated as a “Workman” u/s.2(1)(n), Employees Compensation Act, 1923 even though, by virtue of amended s.3, Railway Protection is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and whether, on account of availability of alternative remedy to apply for compensation u/ss.124 and 124-A, Railways Act, 1989, a claim under the 1923 Act is maintainable. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(n) – Constable of a RPF
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusJAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1300/2023
Decision Date: 24-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC166

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. [2023] 3 S.C.R. 12 12 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023) FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement acquisition proceedings w.r.t the entire land in question are deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due to stay – Held: Despite the
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANPREET SINGH & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 277/2023
Decision Date: 16-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC46

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 2013 – Original writ
NARESH @ NEHRUversusSTATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1786/2023
Decision Date: 09-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC889

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants for off ences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an eyewitness to the crime, if justifi ed. Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon: Held: Evidence of the eye-witness should quality and calibre and it should not only instil confi dence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value – In the present case, testimony of PW-9 (cousin of the deceased) was shrouded with inconsistencies and he had
SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2344/2023
Decision Date: 08-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC687

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a case where in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time, the appellant not named in the FIR as one of the accused persons and no allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against Court was justifi ed in declining to quash the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR, when in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time – High Court declining to quash the FIR –
ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERSversusV. GOPINATH & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1890/2010
Decision Date: 13-02-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC123

K.M. JOSEPH*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 – s.39 – Development Control Rules – Rule 19 – Regulation 29(6) – Chennai Metropolitan Area – Appellants were owners of certain apartments situated in a complex which consisted of 12 blocks – Total area of sq. metres – Portion of land was earmarked in terms of Rule 19 of the Development Control Rules (DCR) as Open Space Regulation Area (OSR) – Said rule mandates that 10% of the area of any developmental plan having area 10,000 sq. meter or more should be reserved as open space for
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3versusABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6580/2021
Decision Date: 24-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC417

Unknown
AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
Case No.: TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 409/2021
Decision Date: 17-03-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC257

SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 321, 406 – Constitution of India – Art. 139A – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. 39 – Petitioner-brother of deceased sought transfer of the criminal trial pending in West Bengal to Assam by unknown persons – Respondents-accused were charged u/s. 302 r/w s.120B of the IPC and u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act 1959 – Charge-sheet was filed – Trial commenced – Respondent no.2 (main accused) was in the custody – During pendency of trial, a notification
SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 942/2023
Decision Date: 28-03-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC306

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 302 – Power to impose modified punishment – Appellant convicted u/ss. 366, 376 and 302 IPC – Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life – High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellant contended that in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors., a modified sentence can be imposed only by the Constitutional Courts and not by the Sessions
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPURversusPRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7689/2022
Decision Date: 24-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC416

M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Income Tax Act, 1961 – Explanation to s.37(1) – ‘any expenditure’ in s.37 – Expenditure/loss incurred for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law, not deductible in terms of Explanation 1 to s.37 – High Court relying upon the Piara Singh case allowed the loss of confiscation of silver bars as a business loss – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Explanation to s.37(1) provides that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law is not an
SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6075/2023
Decision Date: 22-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC898

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether the suit for specifi c performance was fi led within the period of limitation; (ii) Whether the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Suit – Specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and Respondents fi led suit for specifi c performance – The suit was decreed – The First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – The respondents thereafter fi led Second Appeal, which was allowed by the High Court – Propriety: Held: Clause 3 of the agreement to sell (dated
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 397/2023
Decision Date: 20-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC74

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, possession not taken due to stay, however, compensation was sent in RD - Writ petition seeking declaration to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – Allowed by the High Court relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned judgment contrary to law laid down by this Court in the Constitution
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS.versusKRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 946/2023
Decision Date: 17-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC140

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand reported as allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v.
M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUMversusKUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9106/2012
Decision Date: 09-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC996

A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any illegality or perversity in recording the fi nding that there was delay in delivery of consignment. (ii) Whether the NCDRC was justifi ed in not allowing compensation by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol). Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Appellant’s case that the goods were tendered to respondent no.1 on a
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusBONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 969/2023
Decision Date: 10-02-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC116

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.49, 24(3)(d) – Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 – Pre-enrolment training in terms of the 1995 Rules; Pre-enrolment/Post-enrolment examination, if can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council Held: Bar Council of India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre-enrolment training course or examination prescribed by it – Wide powers given to the Bar Council of India u/s.49 r/w s.24(3)(d) are adequate powers with it under the 1961 Act to provide such norms and Rules
SUNIL & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2883/2023
Decision Date: 28-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC459

M.R. SHAH*, SANJAY KAROL Service Law – Inter-se seniority – Filling of vacant posts of private secretaries in the High Court of Delhi – Written examination was conducted – Results were declared – Writ petitions filed by some of the candidates seeking re-evaluation – High Court resulting in increased marks for all – Revised list was drawn – Issue of inter-se seniority arose – Special Committee by its decision dated 01.10.2018 accorded notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list – Held: Considering the fact that the earlier
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 320/2023
Decision Date: 16-10-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC918

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates u/ss.16 and 23(5), Advocates Act, 1961 as well as u/Or. IV, r.2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, if unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality u/Artilce 14 and Right to Practice any Profession u/ Article Right to Life u/Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as claimed. Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – Challenge to – Plea of the petitioners inter alia that designation of senior Advocates has created a class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status and the Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 320/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed  | Direction Issue : Petition dismissed  |  Bench : 3 Judges