SUPREME COURT REJECTED PLEA CHALLENGING SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATIONS
Case Title: Mathews Nedumpara vs. Delhi High Court
On Friday, The Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by advocate Mathew Nedumpara regarding Delhi High Court’s designation of 70 lawyers as Senior Advocates. He has challenged recent designation to these lawyers. The Bench rejected the petition stating that titles do not matter in court of law in treating any lawyer. Allegation of Nepotism was the main concern of the petition but it was rejected by the Court. .
Legal Framework:
- Advocates Act, 1961
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Source: Supreme Court of India
BOMBAY HIGH COURT- STAYS CANARA BANK’s ORDER ON ANIL AMBANI FRAUDULENT LOAN ACCOUNT CASE
Case Title: Anil Ambani vs. Canara Bank
In November 2024, Canara Bank declared Anil Ambani’s loan Account Fraudulent even before proper hearing and classified the account as Fraudulent. The Bombay High Court stayed Canara Bank’s order declaring the same. The Court said that borrowers must be given a hearing before such classification. Also asked RBI to clarify its stance on banks violating procedural safeguards.
Legal Framework:
- RBI Master Circular on Fraud Classification.
- Judgement By Supreme Court on Borrower Rights
Source: Bombay High Court
SUPREME COURT: FAILURE TO INFORM GROUNDS OF ARREST VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Case Title: Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Ground of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person as per the Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, if fail to do so then arrest will be held INVALID. The Apex Court ruled in the regard and mentioned that it would ensure safeguarding Fundamental Rights of citizens. Courts must ensure compliance and if they fail to do so then violations must give them bail even if we have strict judicial norms.
Legal Framework:
- Legal Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution
- CrPC Section 50 & 41 (now BNSS Section 35)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read– DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (07 FEBRUARY 2025)
