The Supreme Court cautioned lawyers against assuming that filing an adjournment slip automatically postpones proceedings. Stressing that only the Bench decides adjournments, the Court directed advocates to remain fully prepared to argue unless an adjournment is expressly granted by the Court.
The Madras High Court ruled that advocates have no vested or fundamental right to demand out-of-turn listing of pending cases. Dismissing a lawyer’s plea, the Court held that only genuinely urgent matters may receive priority through established judicial procedures and exceptional listing protocols.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that advocates operating offices from their residences cannot be charged commercial electricity tariffs, observing that the legal profession differs fundamentally from trade or business activities since legal practice does not involve buying, selling or commercial trading of goods or services.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging rules barring retired NCLT and NCLAT members from practising before these tribunals after retirement, while hearing former NCLAT technical member Vijai Pratap Singh’s challenge against restrictions preventing former members from appearing as advocates or consultants.
