Month: October 2023

Shri Justice Chandrakant Vasant Bhadang Appointed ITAT President


Shri Justice Chandrakant Vasant BhadangShri Justice Chandrakant Vasant Bhadang, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 05.11.1960. He was enrolled as Advocate on 5.12.1984. He was directly appointed as Additional District Judge on 3 October 2000 and worked in various capacities at different places as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court on March 3, 2014 and as Permanent Judge on March 02, 2016.

According to the Bombay High Court website, the following is the brief biodata of JUSTICE CHANDRAKANT VASANT BHADANG: Born on 5 November 1960 at Khamgaon, District Buldhana. Graduated in Science from G.S. College of Commerce, Science and Arts, Khamgaon in 1981. Obtained LL.B. Degree from Nagpur University and was enrolled as an Advocate on 5 December 1984. Comes from a family of Lawyers. Practiced mainly on Civil and Criminal side, in the District Court and for some time at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, before joining Maharashtra Judicial Service, as a directly recruited District Judge on 3 October 2000. Worked as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nagpur, Member Industrial Tribunal at Bandra and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nashik. Also worked in the Registry of the Bombay High Court, on various positions, as Registrar (Vigilance), Registrar (Judicial), Registrar (Personnel) and Registrar (Inspection). Was appointed as Registrar General on 13 May 2013. Elevated as a Judge, Bombay High Court on 3 March 2014.

The following Circular has been issued by

“The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal for appointment of Justice Chandrakant Vasant Bhadang, retired Judge, Bombay High Court to the post of President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Necessary communication in this regard has been sent to the Department of Legal Affairs.”

Important directions of the Supreme Court to all Courts to avoid delays and speed up cases


The Supreme Court dealt with a case where even after 41 years, the parties are still litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative. The Court has issued important directions to all Courts to avoid delays and speed up cases. Yashpal Jain VERSUS Sushila Devi & Others

This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end, and moving at a snail’s pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the other party.

Every pending case represents a soul in limbo, waiting for closure and vindication. Every delay is an affront to the very ideals that underpin our legal system. Sadly, the concept of justice delayed is justice denied is not a mere truism, but an irrefutable truth.

There is an urgent need to take proactive steps to not only clear the huge backlog of cases at all levels but there should be introspection by all stakeholders to gear up to meet the aspirations of the litigant public. When millions of consumers of justice file their cases by knocking at the doors of the courts of first instance, they expect speedy justice

The following directions are issued:

i. All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and 49 same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.

ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.

iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.

iv. In the event of the party’s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.

v. Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis.

vi. Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.

vii. The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.

viii. The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).

ix. The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.

x. At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.

xi. The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.

xii. The Committee so constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly.

It is also made clear that further directions for implementation of the above directions would be issued from time to time, if necessary, 51 and as may be directed by this Court

Statement showing Sanctioned strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts


Strength of Judges

Posted On: 24 MAR 2023 6:16PM by PIB Delhi

As on 21.03.2023, there is no vacancy of Judges in the Supreme Court. As far as the High Courts are concerned, against the sanctioned strength of 1114 Judges, 785 Judges are working and 329 posts of Judges are vacant. Against these 329 vacancies, 119 proposals

recommended by High Court Collegiums are at various stages of processing between the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium and recommendations against remaining 210 vacancies are yet to be received from the High Court Collegiums. TheHigh Court-wise detail of sanctioned strength, working strength and vacancy as on 21.03.2023 is at Annexure.

Appointment of Judges in higher judiciary is a collaborative and integrated process involving the executive and the judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities. Differences of opinion, if any, are mutually reconciled by the executive and the judiciary to ensure that only the apposite person is appointed to the high constitutional post of a Judge.

While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies of Judges in High Courts do keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges and also due to increase in the strength of Judges. Government is committed to filling up of vacancy expeditiously in time-bound manner.

During the period from May, 2014 to 2023 (till 21.03.2023), 54 Judges were appointed in Supreme Court of India, 893 fresh Judges were appointed in the various High Courts and 646 Additional Judges were appointed as Permanent Judges of High Courts.

The detailed statement of Pendency of Cases in Supreme Court and High Court for the past three years, showing the increase/decrease of pendency of cases in the respective courts is as below:

Year 2020 2021 2022
Supreme Court* 64,429 96,855 69,598
High Courts** 56,42,567 56,49,068 59,78,714

*Source: Supreme Court of India pendency as on 4.12.2020, 6.12.2021 and 1.12.2022 respectively.

**Source: National Judicial Data Grid pendency as on 31st December of respective years i.e. 2020, 2021 and 2022.

The pendency of cases in courts is not only due to shortage of judges in High Courts but also due to various other factors like (i) increase in number of state and central legislations, (ii) accumulation of first appeals, (iii) continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction in some of the High Courts, (iv) appeals against orders of quasi-judicial forums going to High Courts, (v) number of revisions/appeals, (vi) frequent adjournments, (vii) indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction, (viii) lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, tracking and bunching of cases for hearing, (ix) assigning work of administrative nature to the Judges, etc.

This information was given by the Union Minister of Law & Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju, in a written reply in Lok Sabha today.



Statement showing Sanctioned strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts (As on 21.03.2023)

Sanctioned strength Working strength Vacancies
A. Supreme Court  34 34 0
B. High Court Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total
1 Allahabad 119 41 160 82 21 103 37 20 57
2 Andhra Pradesh 28 9 37 26 5 31 2 4 6
3 Bombay 71 23 94 42 23 65 29 0 29
4 Calcutta 54 18 72 34 19 53 20 -1 19
5 Chhattisgarh 17 5 22 9 4 13 8 1 9
6 Delhi 46 14 60 45 0 45 1 14 15
7 Gauhati 22 8 30 14 9 23 8 -1 7
8 Gujarat 39 13 52 29 0 29 10 13 23
9 Himachal Pradesh 13 4 17 9 0 9 4 4 8
10 J & K and Ladakh 13 4 17 11 4 15 2 0 2
11 Jharkhand 20 5 25 20 1 21 0 4 4
12 Karnataka 47 15 62 40 13 53 7 2 9
13 Kerala 35 12 47 31 6 37 4 6 10
14 Madhya Pradesh 39 14 53 31 0 31 8 14 22
15 Madras 56 19 75 47 11 58 9 8 17
16 Manipur 4 1 5 3 0 3 1 1 2
17 Meghalaya 3 1 4 3 0 3 0 1 1
18 Orissa 24 9 33 21 0 21 3 9 12
19 Patna 40 13 53 32 0 32 8 13 21
20 Punjab & Haryana 64 21 85 38 27 65 26 -6 20
21 Rajasthan 38 12 50 33 0 33 5 12 17
22 Sikkim 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0
23 Telangana 32 10 42 30 2 32 2 8 10
24 Tripura 4 1 5 2 0 2 2 1 3
25 Uttarakhand 9 2 11 5 0 5 4 2 6
  Total 840 274 1114 640 145 785 200 129 329


Appointment to the post of President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)


No 14/5/2023-E0(SM II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Secratariat of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
North Block, New Delhi 18 10 2023

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal of the Department of Legal Affairs for appointment of Justice Chandrakant Vasant Bhadang retired Judge, Bombay High Court to the post of President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the salary of Rs 2,50000 p m for a period of 04 years, or till attaining the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier

(Arvind Thakur) Under Secretary (EO-SM II) Tel 2309 3913
Department of Legal Affairs (Dr Niten Chandra, Secretary). Shasta Bhawan New Delhi
Copy forwarded for information to
1 Prime Minister’s Office (Shn Hrisheekesh Arvind Modak, Director) 2 Cabinet Secretariat (Ms Kavita Singh Joint Secretary) 3 Guard File

(Arvind Thakur) Under Secretary (EO-SM II) Tel 2309 3913

Appointment of Judges/Additional Judges in the High Courts

Ministry of Law and Justice

Press Communique

Posted On: 18 OCT 2023 7:48PM by PIB Delhi

In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, the President of India, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint the following Judges/Additional Judges in the High Courts:




Name (S/Shri) Details
1. Harinath Nunepally, Advocate  

Appointed as Additional Judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court

2. Smt. Kiranmayee Mandava Alias Kiranmayee Kanaparthy, Advocate
3. Smt. Sumathi Jagadam, Advocate
4. Nyapathy Vijay, Advocate
5. Abhay Jainarayanji Mantri, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Bombay High Court.
6. Shyam Chhaganlal Chandak, Judicial Officer
7. Neeraj Pradeep Dhote, Judicial Officer
8. Johnson John, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Kerala high Court
9. Gopinathan U. Girish, Judicial Officer
10. C. Pratheep Kumar, Judicial Officer
11. Ms. Shalinder Kaur, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Delhi High Court
12. Ravinder Dudeja, Judicial Officer
13. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Appointed as an Additional Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court.
14. Vimal Kanaiyalal Vyas, Judicial Officer Appointed as a Judge of Gujarat high Court.
15. K. V. Aravind, Advocate Appointed as an Additional Judge

of Karnataka High Court

16. Sabyasachi Datta Purkayastha, Judicial Officer Appointed as a Judge of Tripura

High Court

17. Biswajit Palit, Judicial Officer Appointed as an Additional Judge

of Tripura High Court.

Transfer of High Court Judges

Ministry of Law and Justice


Posted On: 18 OCT 2023 7:50PM by PIB Delhi

In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, the President of India, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer the following High Court Judges:


Name of Judge
( S/Shri Justice)
Transfer from High
Transfer to High
S.P. Kesarwani Allahabad Calcutta
Raj Mohan Singh Punjab and Haryana MP
Narendar G Karnataka Andhra Pradesh
Sudhir Singh Patna P&H
M.V. Muralidaran Manipur Calcutta
Madhuresh Prasad Patna Calcutta
Arvind Singh Sangwan Punjab and Haryana Allahabad
Avneesh Jhingan Punjab and Haryana Rajasthan
Arun Monga Punjab and Haryana Rajasthan
Rajendra Kumar-IV Allahabad Madhya Pradesh
Nani Tagia Gauhati Patna
C. Manavendranath Roy Andhra Pradesh Gujarat
Munnuri Laxman Telangana Rajasthan
G. Anupama Chakravarthy Telangana Patna
  1.  _
Ms. Lapita Banerji, Addl. Judge Calcutta Punjab and Haryana
Duppala Venkata Ramana, Addl. Judge Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh