Justice Ajit Prakash Shah
Justice Ajit Prakash ShahBorn on 13th February, 1948 at Solapur – comes from a family of lawyers – his grand father, father and uncles were in the legal profession. Later on his father became Judge of Bombay High Court and upon retirement served as Lokayukta in the State of Maharashtra.
Justice Shah did his graduation from Solapur and degree of law from Government Law College, Mumbai. After a short span of practice in the District Court at Solapur he shifted to Bombay High Court in 1977 and joined the chambers of the then leading Advocate Justice Shri S.C. Pratap. He then gained experience in civil, constitutional, service and labour matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Bombay High Court on 18th December, 1992 and became permanent Judge of Bombay High Court on 8th April, 1994. He assumed charge of the office of Chief Justice, Madras High Court, on 12th November, 2005 and on transfer took over as Chief Justice, Delhi High Court on 11th May, 2008. Retired on 12-02-2010.
Important judgments on various significant issues
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression: – In Anand Patwardhan v. Union of India, 1997 (1) BCR 90, and Anand Patwardhan v. Union of India, 1997 (3) BCR 438 – Quashed the orders of the Government not to telecast the President’s Award winning documentaries “In Memory of Friends” (based on terrorism and violence in Punjab) and ‘Ram Ke Naam’ (based on Ayodhya issue) and directed Doordarshan to telecast the said Documentaries – also stuck down the decision of Censor authorities not to release documentary “Aakrosh” on recent Gujarat communal riots and directed grant of certificate.
2. Environment and Ecological matters: - Issued directions for beautification and maintenance of Girgaon Chowpaty and Juhu Beach – Interpreted Maharashtra Forest (Acquisition) Act highlighting the restrictions and dereservation of forest and use of forest land for non forest use – issued directions to save Hill Stations like Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani.
3. Protection of disabled person: - Restrained the Central and Western Railways, Railway police and Municipal Corporation from taking any action against the blind vendors/hawkers and directed them to frame a scheme for earning of their livelihood – protected the rights of students suffering from Displexia – issued directions to ensure implementation of reservation policy for disabled in the State Government and State Corporations as well as Local Bodies – Recently delivered a judgment where a staff nurse who was made to retire on the ground of mental illness i.e., Schizophrenia was held entitled to full benefit of Section 47 and salary till retirement - Adopted a proactive attitude towards the rights of the disabled persons, ordered Railways and Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai to ensure barrier free environment in their premises, also directed the MTC to make their buses disabled friendly- initiated steps to make the Chennai High Court disabled friendly.
4. Law relating to women: - Recognized the right of muslim women to receive maintenance under Sections 125 and 127 beyond iddat period and recognized the right of second wife to receive maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act. Both the judgments have been affirmed by the Supreme Court – in Yashaswinee Merchant and others v. Air India, held that the circular issued by Air India directing grounding of air hostesses at the age of 58 years is bad in law. The judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court, but later on Government accepted the High Court's judgment and allowed the Air Hostesses to fly till the age of retirement.
5. PIL: - issued various directions for reforms of prisons and particularly in the context of women prisoners and their children – took note of newspaper report of death of children due to malnutrition belonging to tribal areas and directed various measures to save the lives of children – in B. G. Deshmukh and others v. State of Maharashtra held that no political party had any legal right to call for Bombay Bandh and such bandh caused encroachment upon the fundamental rights of citizen and political parties cannot hold the public members at ransom by calling such bandh. The political party was directed to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- towards fine/token compensation – issued directions for proper rehabilitation of nearly 2000 families displaced by Tarapur project – laid down an elaborate scheme for improvement of institutions wherein women and children are housed and for constitution of juvenile Boards – recognized rights of AIDS patients in employment – acted strictly against unscrupulous builders involved in unauthorised constructions while showing a humane approach towards residential buildings – initiated action to improve the conditions of inmates of prisons, juvenile homes and vigilance homes.
6. Other laws: - Delivered several important judgments pertaining to Admiralty Act, Trade Mark and Patent Act, Service and Labour laws.
7. He gave impetus to mediation movement in Maharashtra – recognized movement of Lok Adalat and also started Pension Lok Adalats – took keen interest in legal literacy mission – prepared panel of Arbitrators including retired High Court Judges, retired District Judges and senior members of the Bar who agreed to work on nominal fees and sometimes without charging any fee.
8. He took leading role in organizing the programmes, relating to sensitization of Judicial Officers, Judges, Family Court Judges etc., regarding Gender Justice – took initiative in starting ADR certificate course in collaboration with Mumbai University, - organized various training programmes for imparting training to Judicial Officers on the subject of Juvenile Justice with the help of TISS and UNICEF.
9. Taking note of the environmental issues, directed the bleaching and dyeing units in Tamil Nadu to pay for every litre of untreated effluents let out by them.
10. Directed various steps for computerisation and networking of all courts in Tamil Nadu, including introduction of touch-screen kiosks, digital boards etc.
Justice Mukul Mudgal
Justice Mukul MudgalCurriculum Vitae of Justice Mukul Mudgal
Schooling at Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. B.Sc. (Hons) from Hindu College, Delhi University and LL.B from Law Faculty, Delhi University. Was a member of the Modern School swimming team and represented the school in various swimming competitions. Represented Hindu College & Delhi University in Aquatics and Water polo in 1968-69. Captained the Law Faculty Aquatics team.
Enrolled as an Advocate in 1973 at Delhi and practised in Supreme Court and Delhi High Court since 1973. Was Advocate on Record in Supreme Court from 1978 to February 1998. Was Member Secretary/Treasurer of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee from 1986 to 1995. Conducted cases in Civil Law, Constitutional Law, Labour Law and Public Interest Litigation.
Successfully represented 8 banned cricketers along with the former Attorney General for India, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee in the Supreme Court of India as a counsel in 1989. Appeared as an Amicus Curiae in several cases in the Supreme Court including cases of prison reforms (Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration), assisting his senior Dr. Y.S. Chitale. Appeared as an amicus in Environment Law cases such as the CNG case and as counsel in gender justice case (Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan).
Member National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Geneva and Governing Council of Indian Law Institute.
Appointed as a Judge of High Court of Delhi on 2nd March 1998. Delivered judgments in following important cases:-
· Ajay Jadeja vs. BCCI 95 (2002) DLT 14 holding that the Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) in so far as its functions affect public interest is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Analyzed the judgments of several countries in respect of sports litigation in the said judgment.
· Association of Uphaar Victims and others Vs. Union of India and others, 104 (2003) DLT 234, along with Justice S.K. Mahajan awarding compensation to the families of the Uphaar victims.
· M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Vs. Prasar Bharti and Others CW 1066 of 1998 held that open tendering in favour of the highest bidder is in public interest on the ground that there is no substitute for competitive bidding in open auction and all are free to make a bid in the public auction.
· Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Vs. Bathla Cassettes Industries Private Limited 2003 (27) PTC 280 (Del) analyzed the position of Copyright in other countries in respect of version/statutory recording and licensing and held that a colourable imitation of an original musical work is not entitled to protection under Section 52(1)(j) of the Copyright Act 1957.
· Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Private Limited and Anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council 2003 VI AD (Delhi)1 held that since the licence granted to petitioner was from time to time it cannot operate in perpetuity. The terms of licence indicated it was for specific period of 10 years and the petitioner failed to prove right of renewal inherent or beyond year 2000. Therefore in absence of mutual agreement between parties claim of renewal beyond year 2000 was rejected.
· IRCON International Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 108 (2003) DLT 656 held that any false statement made for claim under Section 17-B on oath attract Sections 191, 192, IPC and Section 304 Cr.PC.
· Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Diya Sondhi 120 (2005) DLT 426 inter alia held that whenever maintenance/interim maintenance is ordered, the Court will direct that it will be paid on or before 10th day of every month unless the Court finds that the nature of the employment of the husband and his manner of income makes such monthly payments impractical.
· Smt. Rachna Jain Vs. Shri Neeraj Jain 120 (2005) DLT 365 Held that the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is directory and not mandatory.
· Colgate vs. Mr.Patel 2005 (31) PTC 583 (Del) held that red & white are basic colours and red and white colour combination is common to toothpaste trade and no monopoly in such colours with respect to trade mark can be claimed.
· Hotel Association of India vs. UOI, W.P. (C ) 4692/1999 dated 12th January 2006 where the plea of gender justice for lady employees of the hospitality industry was upheld.
· D.B. Masih Vs. Registrar Cooperative Society W.P.(C) 10934/2005 dated 5th March 2007 holding therein that when a member resigns from a Group Housing Society, interest has to be paid by the society on the amount deposited by the member at the rate of 7 per cent after deduction of administrative expenditure incurred by society.
· Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India. 138 (2007) DLT 615 . It is not open for a landowner to challenge legality of acquisition notification after a gap of long period and after having acquiesced acquisition proceedings by accepting compensation for land acquired.”
· Vishwa Vibhuti Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors W.P.(C) 2941/2005 dated 1st February 2007 held that the Tribunal is indeed required to deal with the issues raised in the O.A. by passing a reasoned order having applied its mind to the averments raised in O.A. The review petitions are required to be disposed of by giving reasons.
· Kangaro Industries (Retd.) and Ors.Vs. Jaininder Jain and Anr 2007 (34) PTC 321 (Del) held that no technicality can prevent Court from doing justice in exercise of its inherent power and that Article 129 of Constitution, i.e., power of Court to punish for its contempt is a Constitutional Power and when exercised in tandem with Article 142 of Constitution all objections should give way and Court must ensure full justice between parties. Also held that Section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a Court not subordinate to that from which injunction is sought.
· Global Energy Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission WP(C) 13822-23/2006 dated 15th December 2006 Upheld the validity of Clause (b) & (f) of the Regulation 6A of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for grant of Trading License and other related matters) (Amendment) Regulations 2006.
· N.K.Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors LPA No. 291/2002 dated 3rd October 2006 Held that Krishak Bharti Cooperative Limited (KRIBHCO) held that in order to determine the exact jurisdiction of Article 226 and the authorities/persons to which it may apply, it is not necessary to establish that the entity concerned is a State or an instrumentality under Article 12. It is sufficient for the body to be discharging a public function or a public duty. Therefore, KRIBHCO was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 since it was discharging a public duty.
· Jagdish & Others Vs. Delhi Development Authority W.P. (C ) 5007/2002 dated 21st January 2004 held that the Delhi Master Plan had a statutory force and, therefore, the DDA was under a statutory obligation to provide housing for the economically weaker sections of the society who provide indispensable services to the middle and upper class and ordered re-settlement of 200 slum dwellers who were forcibly evicted by DDA.
· Shri Iklash Hussain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation LPA No. 1902/2006 18th October 2006 held that the court is required to decide the application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act prior to the hearing of the writ petition as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
· Late Bawa Harbans Singh through his L.Rs. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. 132 (2006) DLT 535 Held that there is no provision in the CPC or the Rules of the Delhi High Court that permit an application for recall of the writ petition to be filed and that it is nothing but a disguised form of a review petition.
· Vikram Aditya Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.W.P.(C) Nos. 15079, 15080 and 15081/2006 dated 11th October 2006 upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act but held that the amendment clause requiring one of the parties or his/her parent is residing within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, for more than thirty days" to the Delhi Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1956 Form A, cannot be so interpreted so as to deny the registration of the marriage of parties whose marriage is solemnized in Delhi whether or not the parties to the marriage or their parents are residents of Delhi.
· Builders Association of India and Ors. etc. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. etc. etc. W.P. (C) 3620/2003 dated 6th July 2007 Upheld the constitutional validity of The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996 , The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Central Rules, 1998, The Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, The Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002.
· Dr. Homeshwar Tongbram v. Union of India WP (C) 11866/2004 dated 11th May 2007 Ordered for the reinstatement to service and all arrears of pay of the petitioner who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, whose services were terminated on the ground that he did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe and the mandamus issued by the CAT to conduct the DNA test of the petitioner which was not done for 3 years.
· Jugesh Kumar v. State Crl. Appeal No. 255/2004 dated 3rd May 2007 Held that in order to convict the accused on the basis of dying declaration the Court should be satisfied about the truthfulness and the genuineness of the dying declaration and set aside the conviction based on the 4 dying declarations which were contradictory to each other and inconsistent in material aspects.
· Siemens v. HSCC (India) Ltd. WP (C) 6730/2006 dated 6th March 2007 and Ors. And Jindal Stainless Steel W.P. (C) 10274/2006 dated 17th April 2007 Held that the modern State is a welfare State and is under an obligation to fulfill a plethora of functions and to protect a variety of interests including its financial interests and in protecting its financial interest, the State has has a right to refuse even the lowest tender. Such an action on part of the State cannot be struck down by the courts unless it is perverse, unreasonable, arbitrary, smacks of mala fide or if the exercise of power is for a collateral purpose.
· Dr. B. Mishra v. Director General ICAR WP (C) 14438-39/2005 dated 22nd May 2007 Held that the fact that one of the member of the selection committee constituted for the selection of the post of Director General Crop Science was the referee of one of the candidates who was a participant in the selection process and had also co-authored more than 100 papers with him shows clear and intimate linkage between the two and raises a presumption of bias and thus, vitiated the selection process.
· Shoaib Iqbal v. Union of India W.P(C ) 15729/2006 dated 9th July 2007 Dismissed the petition challenging the delimitation exercise carried out by the Delimitation Commission in the NCT of Delhi on the ground that such power vested with the Election Commission and held that both the Delimitation Commission and the Election Commission were empowered to carry out the exercise of delimitation on the ground that the Delimitation Commission undertakes the exercise of re adjusting the constituencies from time to time as a result of the change in the demographic pattern, whereas the Election Commission under the NCT Act is required to perform only a single time exercise for distributing the seats assigned to the legislative assembly by maintaining the delimitation orders up to date . Therefore, there was no conflict between the powers of the Delimitation Commission and the Election Commission with respect to the Delimitation exercise in the NCT of Delhi.
· Rajib Mukhopadhyaya and Ors. Vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies W.P.(C) 4130 and 4143/1997 and 1403-14 and 2267/2006 dated 2nd July 2007 Upheld the constitutional validity and operation of Rule 24 (2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules requiring a draw of lots in the presence of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and held that the said rule shall only apply to new prospective entrants who apply pursuant to the notification issued under Rule 24(2).
· In Jai Shankar @Pappu Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi directed the trial court concerned to supply the the accused who is being represented by the counsel nominated by the State Legal Services Authority with the copy of the charge, exhibited documents of prosecution as well as defence, copies of statement of witnesses of prosecution as well as defence and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C apart from the impugned judgment, so that the mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution providing free legal aid to the indigent is fulfilled along with Section 363 of the Cr. P.C.
· Maninder Pal Singh Kohli v. Union of India W.P (Crl) 821/ 2007 dated 6th July 2007 Upheld the Extradition Enquiry Report of the Extradition Magistrate on the ground that the findings recorded by the Extradition Magistrate under the Extradition Act shall be treated as prima-facie in nature.
Authored Articles on various topics like
· 'Legal Aid – Reasonable Recompense', published in Vol.I Issue No.1 July 2002 of Nyaya Kiran – The official journal of DLSA;
· 'Benefits of Community Service', published in Vol.No.II Issue No.1 January 2003 of Nyaya Kiran;
· 'Conciliation : An Indian Perspective', published in Vol.No.II Issue No.2 April 2003 of Nyaya Kiran;
· 'Awareness of Rights' published in Nyayadeep – The official journal of NALSA;
· 'National Legal Literacy Mission – Implementation Strategies', published in issue of Nyayadeep;
· 'The Problem of Undertrials-II : Kadra Pahariya & Juvenile Justice', published in the “Punishment and the Prison : Indian and International Perspectives”;
· 'Prison & Custody: Application of International Human Rights Norms by Supreme Court of India';Judicial Colloquium in Bangalore held by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 1999.
· Law & Culture;Published in CCERT publication.
· International Refugees submitted in a seminar organized by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the International Law Association, Delhi.
· The Right Based Approach to Disability & Development/Equality & Social Justice for the Disabled, published in January 2006 issue of Nyayadeep – The official journal of NALSA;
· Drug Abuse, delivered in National Seminar & Workshop-cum-training Programme on Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic substance – The Law & Society held on 25th and 26th March 2006; and
· Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Rights submitted at The 72nd Biennial Conference of International Law Association at Toronto, Canada from 4th June to 8th June 2006.
· Lecture on Judicial Activism and Public Interest, in a seminar organized by the University of Delhi held on 4th November 2006.
· Compensation for human rights violation: Dynamic approach of the Indian Judiciary, published in Volume XXXIV of The Indian Advocate, Journal of the Bar Association of India.
· Constitutional Guarantees on access to justice, submitted in the ILI Seminar on “Delay in Administration of Criminal Justice System” at Vigyan Bhawan.
· Legal Aid as instrument to facilitate Access to Justice, published in Nyaya Kiran, Volume 1, Issue-1, April-June 2007.
Elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court w.e.f. 05.12.2009.
Justice B.N. Chaturvedi
Justice B.N. ChaturvediB.N. Chaturvedi-M.A. (Phil) M.A. (Pol. Sc.) LLB
Born on October 2, 1947 at Allahabad.
Enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of U.P. at Allahabad on January, 1969. Practised at Allahabad on Criminal Side before joining U.P. Civil Service (Judl.) on 14.11.1970 as Additional Munsif Magistrate at Bijnor (U.P.).
Joined Delhi Judicial Service on 21.09.1971. Promoted to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on 14.08.1984.
Worked on deputation as Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi from January, 1996 to January, 1999.
Elevated as Judge of the Delhi High Court on 01.12.2000. Retired on 01.10.2009.
Justice Neeraj Kishan Kaul
Justice Neeraj Kishan KaulBorn on 23rd November, 1963. Studied in Modern School, Delhi. Graduated in B.A.(Arts) from St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi in 1984. Obtained LL.B. degree from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi in 1987. Obtained LL.M. degree from the University of Cambridge (U.K.) in 1988. Was awarded Sukhdevi Girdhari Lal Grover Prize by the University of Delhi for obtaining highest marks in constitutional law in 1987. Was adjudged the ‘Best Student Advocate of India’ , at the All India Moot Court Competition held under the auspices of Bar Council of India in 1986-87. Enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi on 23rd July, 1987. Practised in Delhi High Court, Supreme Court of India and other High Courts of India, Company Law Board, MRTP, AIFR, TDSAT etc. in Civil, Constitutional, Commercial, Corporate, Company, Service, Arbitration , taxation and intellectual property matters. Appointed as Standing Counsel for the Central Government in Delhi High Court in 1998. Was designated as Senior Advocate by the Delhi High Court in July, 2002. Assisted the Court as amicus curiae in a number of matters including matters relating to prevention and cure of dengue, rehabilitation of orphaned minor girl and provision for free medical treatment for the poor patients in hospitals. Was invited to speak at “Parliamentary Internship Programme for Foreign Parliamentary Officials” held by Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training (Lok Sabha Secretariat). Attended a number of International Conferences. Appointed as Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court on 15th April, 2009. Resigned on 1st September, 2009.
Justice H R Malhotra
Justice H R MalhotraBorn on 10th April,1947. Graduated in Arts from Punjab University in the year 1968. Graduated in Law from Delhi University in the year 1971. Joined legal profession, and practised law in District Courts as also in the High Court of Delhi till 1985. Taught Law as a part-time Lecturer in Delhi University in the year 1984-85. Joined Delhi Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judge in November,1985. Worked as such till March,1997. Appointed Registrar, Delhi High Court in April,1997 and remained there till December,2000. While working as a Registrar, sent to United Kingdom to attend the training programme titled “Gender Bias” for six weeks. Appointed District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in July,2001. Elevated as Additional Judge of Delhi High Court on 26th August,2002. Appointed permanent Judge with effect from 21.1.2004. Retired on 9th April,2009.
Justice Manmohan Sarin
Justice Manmohan Sarinustice Manmohan Sarin 20.10.1946. Enrolled as an Advocate in 1979. Practised in Delhi High Court, District Courts and occasionally in the Supreme Court in Civil and Constitutional matters. Appointed Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court w.e.f. 17.5.1995 and permanent Judge of that High Court w.e.f. 6.12.1996. Elevated as Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court w.e.f. 03.09.2008.
Justice T. S. Thakur
Justice T. S. ThakurJustice Tirath Singh Thakur, B.Sc., LL.B.- Born on 04.01.1952. Enrolled as an Advocate on April 5, 1974 and practised in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and Srinagar in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Taxation and Service matters. Was Standing Counsel among others for the Income Tax Deptt., University of Jammu, Board of School Education and Reserve Bank of India. Was nominated as a Member of the Law faculty of the University of Jammu. Was elected as President of the Bar Association in the year 1986. Was designated as a Senior Advocate in the year 1990. Appointed as an Addl. Judge of the High Court of J.&K. on 16th Feb. 1994. Transferred as Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in March 1994 and appointed a permanent Judge in September 1995. Nominated as member of the First University Council of the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine University. Transferred as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi in July 2004. Appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on 09.04.2008.
Elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court w.e.f. 11.08.2008.
Justice J. M. Malik
Justice J. M. MalikBorn on 18th July, 1946. Did graduation from Punjab University in 1968. Studied law at Punjab University and was enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana in 1968. Practised mainly at Kaithal for a period of four years. Thereafter joined Delhi Judicial Services in the year 1972. During this period worked as Magistrate, Sub-Judge, Rent Controller, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Customs etc. Promoted to Higher Judicial Services on 17th January 1989. Worked as Special Judge NDPS was the sole Member of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on deputation. Worked as Additional District Judge and dealt with the LAC and Civil Cases. Also worked as Sessions Judge, Designated Court of TADA, POTA, MOCCA. Before elevation to the High court as Additional Judge on 28th February 2006, was worked as Judge-in-Charge, Karkardooma Courts. Retired on 17th July, 2008.
Justice M K Sharma
Justice M K SharmaJustice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, M.A., LL.B., Ph.D. - Born on 18.9.1946. Enrolled as and Advocate on 16.6.1970. Practised in the Gauhati High Court in Constitutional, Service, Civil and Taxation matter etc. Worked as Panel and Government Lawyer for the States of Assam and Manipur and also Railways. Was the Standing Counsel for State of Mizoram from 1981 to 1988 and Advocate General of the same State from 28.4.1988 to 7.2.1989. Was designated as Senior Advocate on 1.1.1988. Worked as Advocate General for State of Nagaland from April, 1992 to January 1994. Was a part-time Lecturer in Law in Gauhati University Law College from 1979 to 1992. Was associated with research work in Law Research Institute, Gauhati High Court and gave legal shape to the customary laws of the tribes of the North East. Appointed as permanent Judge of the Gauhati High Court from 10.1.1994. Transferred to Patna High Court and joined on 14.2.1994. Transferred to Delhi High Court on 12.12.1994. Elevated as Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court w.e.f. 28-11-2006. Elevated as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court w.e.f. 04-12-2006.
By virtue of being the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is discharging the function of Chancellor of National Law School of Delhi University. Participated in a number of national and international seminars, in India and abroad, in various fields, particularly in Arbitration, Mediation, Plea Bargaining, Judicial Reforms and Intellectual Property Rights.
Elevated as Judge of Supreme Court w.e.f. 9.4.2008.