Supreme Courtroom – Trial Legal professional can’t transfer a choose’s dismissal as a result of an unsatisfactory order could have been issued

The Supreme Court rejected a motion to deny Justice DY Chandrachud on the grounds that a petitioner could not choose a bank of his choice.

The petitioner requested the judge’s refusal on the grounds that she might not receive a favorable order.

The original case arose out of a domestic violence complaint that was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The appeal was later also dismissed by the judge for additional sessions. The appeal for appeal to the High Court was also dismissed, whereupon the petitioner filed a written request under Article 226.

This written petition was forwarded to the Supreme Court where the Dividing Bank of Judges DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph found it unsustainable as a High Court decision in the exercise of its judicial powers cannot be challenged.

The petitioner then requested the order to be recalled and requested it.

She appeared in person before the court and asked for Justice DY Chandrachud’s refusal to hear her petition.

Judge Shah ruled that a refusal was not admissible as it was not based on reasonable grounds, so refused her request to recall the previous order.

Comments are closed.