https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306616 The High Court's rule-making power under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act was construed to extend to regulating an advocate's physical appearance before subordinate courts, including prescribed dress, and Rule 12 was upheld as valid. Because the rule was mandatory, non-compliance could lawfully result in refusal of audience, as the court's power to enforce courtroom decorum was implied in the regulatory scheme. Rule 615 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 was also sustained as consistent with the Advocates Act rules, and as a valid procedural regulation under Article 227 and Section 122 CPC. The prescribed court dress was therefore upheld as enforceable. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306616 The High Court's rule-making power under Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act was construed to extend to regulating an advocate's physical appearance before subordinate courts, including prescribed dress, and Rule 12 was upheld as valid. Because the rule was mandatory, non-compliance could lawfully result in refusal of audience, as the court's power to enforce courtroom decorum was implied in the regulatory scheme. Rule 615 of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 was also sustained as consistent with the Advocates Act rules, and as a valid procedural regulation under Article 227 and Section 122 CPC. The prescribed court dress was therefore upheld as enforceable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306616