Supreme Court today is scheduled to take up for hearing petition filed by Yatin Oza challenging the decision of the Gujarat High Court of revoking Oza's senior designation.
Oza has also assailed Rule 26 of the High Court of Gujarat Senior Designation Rules, 2015 for being ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Oza's senior gown was recalled after contempt of court proceedings were initiated against Oza for levelling allegations of corruption against the Court registry.
Oza had tendered an unconditional apology but the same was rejected by the HC.
Justice Kaul inquires when the matter is listed before the HC.
Senior Adv Arvind Datar: September 17
Justice Kaul: It is unfortunate that Mr. Oza has made things worse for himself.
Naphade: He has a bit of a temperamental issue.
Justice Kaul observes that some days there are remarks made from the Court, sometimes from the Counsel but Oza has been in controversy multiple times
Advocate Nikhil Goel tells the Court that Oza's apology has not been accepted by the High Court.
SC fixes the matter for hearing on September 29.
Yatin Oza at the end makes a brief submission before the Court, couching for his sincerity, Oza says his is "not a paper apology"
Justice Kaul observes "it is an unfortunate incident"
Singhvi: I (Oza) have apologised on a number of ocassions but then I was told that my apology will not be accepted. Then it was said that I didn't argue on merits
Shekhar Napdhade reiterates that Oza has a "heart of gold" even though some temperament issue
Supreme Court allows petitioner (Yatin Oza) to file an SLP against the Gujarat HC judgment.
Matter to be heard next on September 29
"Not a paper apology", Yatin Oza says as Supreme Court defers hearing of challenge to Senior designation revocation till Gujarat High Court decision
Supreme Court hears Indian Medical Association’s petition on alleged misleading statements and advertisements targeting the practice of allopathic medicine.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan.
#SupremeCourt #Misleadingmedicalads
Justice Nagarathna: all the reliefs sought in the prayers have already been achieved. We should close this now.
Amicus Curiae Sr. Adv. Shadan Farasat: the status quo may be maintained.
Justice Nagarathna: Court cannot legislate neither can it revive an omission.
Counsel: in ayurveda you can come up and say this is the cure of this disease, people will be lured. And the disease will be in curable by the time they will approach the allopathic doctor.
Justice Nagarathna: so long as they are permitted to manufacture and they manufacture it afterwards we can’t say don’t…
Supreme Court hears a plea concerning pollution from the massive discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries into the Palar River in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
In the last hearing, Court issued slew of directions, notably ordering compensation to affected families, recoverable from the polluting industries under the “polluter pays” principle.
The Court also ordered the constitution of an expert panel to assess and audit ecological damage and recommend remedial measures.
The Supreme Court will shortly continue hearing the appeals concerning JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL).
SG Tushar Mehta hands over a note on EBITDA to the court.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul begins his arguments.
Delhi High Court directs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register complaint on the basis of its preliminary inquiry into allegations of inmates and jail authorities running an extortion racket and other criminal activities at Tihar Jail.
The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela today heard the matter.
Court - The preliminary enquiry report shows involvement of the inmates and jail officials in various kinds of illegal and corrupt practices going on in the jail.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the cash-for-jobs scam case involving ex-TN minister Senthil Balaji.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
#SupremeCourt #SenthilBalaji #cashforjobscam
On the last hearing the Court had pulled up the State government for naming more than 2000 individuals as accused remarking that a “cricket stadium” would be required to conduct trial.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Balaji): these are 3 applications.
Justice Kant: after 2 years you’re filing applications.
Sibal: without notice they have filed counters in 25.2. All that I want is in the first application the matter may be decided by the trial court without being influenced by the observations. I want a caveat. That’s all I want.
Supreme Court hears the case where notice was issued to a litigant named Peddi Raju and his lawyers, asking them to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for allegedly making scurrilous allegations against Telangana High Court judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya
Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde appears for the respondent: This is unconditional and unreserved apology. We have only set out the circumstances in which the statement was made.
CJI: But how can such scurrilous allegations be made. Apologise before the division bench now
Sr Adv Nagamuthu appears for the AoR
CJI: The ground on which proceedings were sought to be transferred was on the basis that conduct of a single judge gave rise to apprehension of procedural injustice. They had argued that only 5 minutes was given to argue the case.