Skip to content


In Re: an Advocate - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1930All22a; 122Ind.Cas.894; 123Ind.Cas.683
AppellantIn Re: an Advocate
Excerpt:
bar councils act (xxxviii of 1926), section 9 - enrolment of advocates--discretion of high court--power to refuse where applicant is engaged in trade. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working..........but he should be allowed to apply afresh when he disassociates himself from the business.2. there can be no question that the high court has power to refuse admission to any person at its discretion. this is so even if there are rules to the contrary, vide proviso to section 9 of act 38 of 1926. we think that weight should be attached to the recommendation of the bar council which represents the views of the legal profession. we accordingly refuse this application for the time being giving him liberty to revive his application after he has ceased to carry on trade.3. there is no order as to costs.
Judgment:

1. Mr. Shushil Chandra Chaturvedi of Firozabad is already on the roll of vakils but is actually engaged in trade and has suspended his practice. He applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The Bar Council recommends that his application may be refused but he should be allowed to apply afresh when he disassociates himself from the business.

2. There can be no question that the High Court has power to refuse admission to any person at its discretion. This is so even if there are rules to the contrary, vide proviso to Section 9 of Act 38 of 1926. We think that weight should be attached to the recommendation of the Bar Council which represents the views of the legal profession. We accordingly refuse this application for the time being giving him liberty to revive his application after he has ceased to carry on trade.

3. There is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //