This is a non-substantive order where the High Court directed the parties to refer to a detailed order passed in a kindred writ petition decided on the same date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10069-2018 Date of decision:- 29.08.2018
Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu
...Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in both the cases.
Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4
RITU BAHRI J.
For detail order, see CWP No. 9764-2018 titled as Dr. Anmol
Rattan Sidhu v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and ors. , decided
on even date.
29.08.2018 ( RITU BAHRI ) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Gaurav Arora 2018.09.20 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu
Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
